Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Flexural Behavior of Laced Reinforced Concrete Moderately

Deep Beams
Thaar S. Al-Gasham, Jasim M. Mhalhal, Sallal R. Abid*
Civil Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Wasit University, Iraq

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This paper aims to experimentally and numerically investigate the flexural behavior of
Received 10 November 2019 laced reinforced concrete moderately deep beams. The study focuses on the influence of the
Received in revised form 13 April 2020 lacing angle (30, 45, and 60
) and the ratio of the tension reinforcement (0.33, 1.13, and
Accepted 14 April 2020
2.01%). Six beams were fabricated, with a cross-sectional width of 150 mm and a depth of
240 mm, and 1530 mm in length. In five specimens, lacings were employed as shear
Keywords: reinforcement instead of the conventional stirrups. A reference beam was fabricated with
deep beam
conventional vertical stirrups. All beam specimens were subjected to the four-point
lacing
crack pattern
bending up to failure with effective and shear spans of 1400 and 400 mm, respectively.
ABAQUS Compared to the reference beam, laced beams experienced significant stiffness enhance-
concrete damage plasticity ments of up to 43.7%. However, the improvement in the ultimate load did not exceed 10%.
The recorded strains in lacings clearly signify the efficiency of lacings in resisting the
longitudinal and diagonal tension stresses induced along the flexural and shear spans.
Moreover, a nonlinear finite element analysis was performed using ABAQUS, based on
which parametric studies were conducted. Parametric studies showed that the ductility
was significantly increased with the increase of lacings bar diameter, while the ultimate
load capacity was only slightly enhanced.
© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC
BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

In reinforced concrete structures, beams are elements that are designed to sustain transverse loads. Reinforced concrete
beams can be categorized depending on their shear span to effective depth ratio (a/d) into three groups; deep beams
(a/d 1.0), moderately deep beams (1.0 < a/d< 2.5) and ordinary shallow beams (a/d 2.5) [1,2]. Deep beams are two-
dimensional elements because of the high ratio of depth to length. Therefore, the cross-sections exhibit nonlinear
deformations under bending resulting in nonlinearity in the distribution of strains across these sections. Thus, shear
deformations are remarkable compared to pure flexural ones. Consequently, shear is the governing criterion in the design of
deep beams [3–5]. On the other hand, ordinary shallow beams are one-dimensional elements, in which the strains are almost
distributed linearly across the section. In general, they experience ductile flexure failure due to their low flexural strength
compared to shear strength [6,7]. In reinforced concrete moderately deep (RCMD) beams, flexural strength is close to or
equal to shear strength. Therefore, these beams undergo flexural-shear failure [8]. Moderately deep beams are frequently
used in tall buildings, silos, shopping malls, and offshore structures.
In the literature, several investigations have been introduced to improve the overall structural response of RCMD beams. Lee
et al. [9] executed tests to improve the strength of RCMD beams with an a/d ratio of 1.22 by replacing the conventional stirrups by

* Corresponding author.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00363
2214-5095/© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
2 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) sheets. The investigated parameters were the length, direction, and anchorage of CFRP
sheets. The study stated that using CFRP sheets did not alter the failure mode, and all specimens failed in a brittle manner due to
the shear-compression failure. However, the shear strength of beams developed as the length of CFRP sheets increased with U-
wrapped sheets as an anchorage. Moreover, the best strength improvement was found when the CFRP sheets were applied in the
horizontal direction. The efficiency of CFRP sheets in increasing the shear strength of RCMD beams was also confirmed by Li and
Leung [10]. They furthermore explained that the enhancement in the shear strength due to CFRP sheets was substantial for the a/
d ratio of less than 2.5. Albidah et al. [11] suggested two methods to enhance the performance of RCMD beams. In the first, they
used a steel welded wire mesh wrapped around the flexural reinforcement, while in the second, U-CFRP sheets were used with
additional horizontal sheets for bonding. In the later method, two types of concrete were employed with or without hooked steel
fibers. The results revealed that both methods succeeded in developing the shear capacity of RCMD beams compared to beams
with stirrups, and the development became more evident with using hooked steel fibers. However, using these fibers led to a
reduction in the ductility of beams. Another approach for improving the shear strength of RCMD beams with an a/d of 1.65 was
proposed by Ibrahim et al. [12] through employing hybrid carbon/glass fiber reinforced polymer strips. These strips were
inserted in concrete groves along the beams’ span with a distance of 100 mm to 200 mm. The proposed method improved the
shear strength of RCMD beams up to 55.8%, accompanied by an enhancement in the deformational features of beams. However,
this method did not change the brittle failure of RCMD beams, where the typical compression shear failure was dominant.
Wakjira and Ebead [13] also used fabric-materials in strengthening of RCMD beams, but with the a/d of 2.0. Four types of fiber
were utilized, including glass, carbon, and polyparaphenylene benzobisoxazole. These fabric-materials were applied into two
manners, which were near-surfaced embedded and externally bonded. The strengthened samples gave higher shear strength, by
about 16.6% to 56.2%, compared to those without strengthening. The best results were obtained when the technique of near-
surfaced embedded was adopted.
On the other hand, the deformation capacities of beams did not exhibit a remarkable improvement.
An attempt was made by Azam et al. [14] to improve the shear strength of RCMD beams with a/d of 1.6 using cement-
based composites and epoxy-based carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP). It was reported that the development in shear
strength was better when the cement-based composites were used. However, in both systems, the ductility of moderate
deep beams did not improve where brittle shear failure was observed.
It is evident that the techniques used in the previous studies for improving the behavior of RCMD beams depended mainly
on fabric-materials, which are expensive and time-consuming. These methods were applied after constructing beams as a
replacement for conventional web reinforcements. Therefore, the failure of beams during the construction due to the self-
weight is possible. Another important conclusion from the reviewed literature is that the proposed methods could improve
the ultimate load capacity of beams, yet were insufficient in enhancing the beams' ductility. In this paper, an inexpensive
method was suggested to improve the overall structural response of RCMD beams by using lacing bars as an alternative to the
conventional stirrups. This method was used previously in shallow reinforced concrete elements (beams and slabs) and
succeeded in improving the strength and deformation characteristics of these elements [15–21].
Lacings comprise continuous bent bars tying the longitudinal flexural bars on both sides of laced reinforced concrete
(LRC) elements [22].In this configuration of reinforcement, lacing bars improve the structural response of reinforced
concrete beams in the zone of maximum displacement through tying the bottom and top longitudinal bars together [16].
Lacings were found to be effective in improving the ductility of reinforced concrete elements by getting significant support
rotation, attaining strain hardening after yield, restricting concrete spalling, and increasing the shear strength under blast
loading [19]. However, the installation of lacing bars is complicated since they are inserted besides longitudinal bars [17].
This disadvantage could be avoided in elements with considerable depth, such as RCMD beams.
The available literature on LRC elements is too limited. Most of the available studies focused on the blast resistance of LRC
members. According to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this investigation is the first attempt to enhance the structural response
of RCMD beams using lacings rather than shear stirrups. In this work, experimental and numerical studies were conducted to better
demonstrate the complicated mechanical contribution of lacings in the shear and flexural strengths of RCMD beams.

2. Test Specimens

Six specimens of RCMD beams with a/d ratio of 2.0 were fabricated with identical dimensions. The specimens had a
cross-section with a 150 mm width and 240 mm depth, and an overall length of 1530 mm. These dimensions were close
to the dimensions of some beams in previous investigations [11,23]. Furthermore, the proportion of (depth/length) was
in the range of other previous studies [12,13]. However, in reinforced concrete elements susceptible to shear failure,
such as deep or moderate deep beams and flat plates, the size effect plays an essential role in their strength [24,25]. This
effect is marginal when the effective depth is smaller than 400 mm [26]. Therefore, the results of the current study did
not significantly affected by the size factor since most of the specimens failed in flexure, as illustrated in the next
sections, because their depth was smaller than 400 mm in addition to the existence of shear reinforcement that reduces
the size effect [27].
The UFC manual [28] was followed in detailing the lacing reinforcement of five specimens in the current study. This
manual is specialized to design RC elements exposed to explosions, but it recommends to use a traditional codes for elements
under static loads. Therefore, the flexural and shear provisions of the ACI 318M-14 [29] were adopted in the design of all
beams herein.
 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 3

The test parameters were the shear reinforcement configuration and the tension reinforcement ratio. Two configurations
of shear reinforcement were adopted. The first was 8 mm diameter vertical stirrups spaced at 100 mm center to center, while
the second was 8 mm diameter lacing bars with inclination angles of 30o , 45o , or 60o . These angles were chosen because they
are typically used in laced members and adopted in the previous studies conducted on shallow RC elements [16–18].
On each side of the laced beams, two lacing bars were placed oppositely, bounding the corner longitudinal bars, to form a
set of consecutive and contiguous diamonds. The number of these diamonds decreased with increasing the angle of lacing as
shown in Fig. 1. For angles 30o , 45o , and 60o , the diamonds were spaced at a distance of 360 mm, 210 mm, and 120 mm center
to center, respectively. This distance was equivalent to the horizontal projection of the lacing part, extending throughout two
successive transverse bars.
For tension reinforcement, three ratios were selected, which were 0.33% (2Ø8 mm bars), 1.13% (3Ø12 mm bars,) and 2.01%
(3Ø16 mm bars). The lowest and highest ratios were approximately equal to the minimum and maximum ratios, given by ACI
318M-14 [29]. These values were chosen to assess lacing contribution in the flexural strength of beams when the ratio of
flexural reinforcement decreased from the maximum to the minimum. The tension bars were placed at 40 mm from the
beam’s bottom surface resulting in a 200 mm effective depth. Two 8mm-bars were used as a compression reinforcement for
the six beams, as illustrated in Fig. 1. Table 1 lists the mechanical properties of the used bars.
All beams were concreted to achieve a target compressive strength of 30 MPa using normal-weight concrete with a mix
design of 1.00 cement: 1.57 sand: 2.80 gravel and water to cement ratio of 0.45. The actual mechanical properties for each
specimen were summarized in Table 2 based on the average values of three control samples, which were tested on the test
day of the corresponding beam.
In general, the specimens were divided into two groups, as listed in Table 3, according to the investigated parameter.
Group 1 consisted of four samples, V-3/12, L30-3/12, L45-3/12, and L60-3/12, with various configurations of shear
reinforcement. Group 2 consisted of two beams, L45-2/8 and L45-3/16, with different reinforcement ratios. It is worth
mentioning that the first section of beams’ designation shows the configuration of the shear reinforcement (i.e., V is vertical
stirrups and L30 is a laced bar running at an angle of 30
), while the second part refers to the number and diameter of the
tension bars (i.e., 3/12 refers to three numbers of 12 mm diameter bars).

3. Test Setup and Instrumentation

The four-point bending test was adopted to assess the flexural performance of the tested beams, as shown in Fig. 2. The beams
were simply supported between a clear span of 1400 mm. The four-point bending test set up is capable of producing a region of

Fig. 1. Configuration and reinforcement details of test beams

4 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

Table 1
The mechanical properties of the used steel bars

Nominal diameter Actual area Yield strength Ultimate strength Elongation

(mm) (mm2) (MPa) (MPa) (%)
8 49 551 690 17.2
12 112 513 671 17.5
16 199 482 618 18.75

Note; each value represented an average for three samples.

Table 2
The mechanical properties of the concrete for each test beam

Specimen Compressive strength f’c (MPa) Modulus of rupture fr (MPa) Splitting tensile strength ft (MPa) Modulus of elasticity (GPa)
V-3/12 28.4 3.11 2.81 20.78
L30-3/12 30.4 3.33 3.08 23.25
L45-3/12 29.4 2.94 2.75 21.98
L60-3/12 27.1 2.78 2.57 19.25
L45-2/8 28.2 3.05 2.73 21.25
L45-3/16 28.7 3.26 3.25 22.78
Average (X) 28.70 3.08 2.87 21.55
SD 1.12 0.20 0.25 1.45
C.O.V. % 3.90 6.60 8.77 6.74

Table 3
Details and experimental results of beams

Group number Specimen Shear reinforcement Tension bars Yield load, Py (kN) Failure load, Pf (kN) Ductility
1 V-3/12 Vertical stirrups 3Ø12 142 171 2.77
L30-3/12 30
lacing 3Ø12 162 183 2.38
L45-3/12 45
lacing 3Ø12 141 186 6.00
L60-3/12 60
lacing 3Ø12 148 188 2.83
2 L45-2/8 45
lacing 2Ø8 55 104 12
L45-3/16 45
lacing 3Ø16 No yield 213 Not applicable

constant shear force named the shear span, extending from support points to the loading point, with a length of 400 mm. The
interior zone between the loading points is 600 mm in length, known as the flexural span, where the moment is maximum and
constant. The load was applied gradually at an increment of 5 kN up to failure using a hydraulic jack of 1000 kN capacity. A load
cell was inserted between the jack and a stiff spreader beam to record the load being applied. The deflection was recorded using
three LVDTs positioned vertically under the tested beam below the center and the loading points.
Electrical strain gages with a length of 5 mm were fixed on reinforcement bars, as plotted in Fig. 1, to monitor the
deformation in the stirrups, lacings, and longitudinal bars. At the center of beams, two gages were mounted on the top and
bottom bars to register the maximum strain due to the flexural stress. In addition, one gage was placed on the center of shear

Fig. 2. Test set up

 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 5

reinforcement (either be stirrup or lacings), although the shear stress in this zone was zero to evaluate the contribution of
lacings in resisting the flexural stress. To evaluate the strains that could be induced due to shearing stresses, strain gages
were fixed on the shear reinforcement in the middle of the beams’ depth along the shear span. Besides, one 30 mm length
strain gauge was fixed on the top surface of the beams at mid-span to observe the concrete strain.
Finally, all instrumentations described above were connected to a data-logger that was computerized to readings per
second during the experiment time.

4. Experimental Results

4.1. General behavior and crack patterns

Cracks were traced continuously during the experiments, and the corresponding loads were recorded. Fig. 3 shows the
crack patterns of the specimens at failure loads. Three specimens (L45-3/12, L45-2/8, and L60-3/12) failed in the flexure
mode. In these beams, the flexural cracks first started at loads of 20 to 33 kN in the flexural span. The flexural cracks
increased, widened, and traveled upward as the applied load increased. At a load of approximately 48 kN, inclined cracks
occurred either as separate ones or as an extension of the flexural cracks at the shear span. Finally, at the failure load, one or
two of the flexural cracks rapidly expanded and almost reached the top face of the beam, followed by the concrete crushing in
this region. Nevertheless, the inclined cracks did not propagate up to the compression surface.
Two samples, V-3/12 and L30-3/12, exhibited a combined flexure-shear failure. At loads of 22 to 30 kN, the first flexural
crack was observed on the tension surface directly under the loading points where the bending moment was the largest.
Thereafter, inclined cracks appeared at the shear span when the applied load was reached between 43 and 51 kN. As the load
increased, both crack- types grew, enlarged, and propagated upward, causing the failure of these beams, followed by the
crushing of concrete.
The beam L45-3/16 showed the brittle shear failure. It was observed that flexural cracks were limited and did not advance
a lot upwards once they reached two-thirds of the beam depth. The failure took place due to the extending of two inclined

Fig. 3. Numerical and experimental crack patterns of specimens at the failure load
6 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

cracks across the beam depth. It is worth mentioning that the flexural cracks in the sample V-3/12, with conventional stirrup
configuration, grew vertically in the flexural span, while the cracks of the laced beams branched as they grew like tree twigs.

4.2. Effect of lacing angle

In order to investigate the effect of the lacing angle on the structural behavior of RCMD beams, the test observations of
L30-3/12, L45-3/12, and L60-3/12 beams were compared to those of the V-3/12 beam in terms of load, deflection, and strains
measured in steel and concrete.
The load-central deflection responses of these beams were approximately similar and linear up to the yielding of the
tension reinforcement, as shown in Fig. 4. Beyond yielding, they became nonlinear, and the laced beams showed a stiffer
response compared to that of the V-3/12 beam. This was due to the lacing contribution in resisting flexural stresses and
restricting the growth and expansion of the flexural crack along the flexural span. Hence, their moments of inertia were
enhanced, especially after the yielding of the tension bars. Thereafter, the responses continued to rise but at a slope less than
their initial ones, until attaining peak loads. Finally, loads of V-3/12 and L60-3/12 beams dropped noticeably. On the contrary,
loads of beams L30-3/12 and L45-3/12 decreased at a very slow rate, exhibiting a distinguishable plastic plateau in their
responses. However, the influence of lacings on the failure load was marginal (7.0 to 9.9% larger than that of the specimen
V-3/12). This was due to the crushing of concrete of the four specimens at close loads, noting that they had approximately the
same concrete grade.
In general, the deflections of L30-3/12, L45-3/12, and L60-3/12 beams measured at the failure load of the V-3/12 beam
(171 kN) were 43.7, 37.5 and 25%, respectively, lower than that observed in the V-3/12 beam. This means that the lacing bars
enhanced the stiffness of RCMD beam by approximately 25 to 43.7% at the load level of 171 kN. At the failure stage, the
maximum central displacement evaluated in the L45-3/12 beam (31 mm) was about 1.72 times that of the V-3/12 beam. The
remaining two laced beams gave a very close maximum displacement to that of the V-3/12 beam.
Fig. 5 displays the strains of the tension (bottom) bars measured at the mid-span of the beams. It can be noticed that the
strain values were very low (less than 147 micro-strains) before the cracking of concrete. Subsequently, there was a
significant increase in the strain until yielding. The specimens V-3/12, L45-3/12, and L60-3/12, yielded at loads of
approximately 141 to 148 kN. The yield load for the L30-3/12 beam was 162 kN. Thereafter, a huge jump in strain values was
observed. Generally, before reaching peak loads, these strains retreated, indicating a relaxation in the bottom bars, which
could be due to the rupture of the bond between these bars and the surrounding concrete at mid-span. However, they did not
exceed 5000 micro-strains in two specimens, V-3/12 and L30-3/12. This value is the minimum in order to consider the beam
as tension-controlled in accordance with the ACI 318M-14 provisions [29]. On the other hand, the L45-3/12 beam showed the
largest strain value, among others, which surpassed 8000 micro-strain. On the contrary, the strains in the top bars measured
at mid-span were not worthy of interest. They were marginal values since the provided steel area was only 339 mm2, which
was less than 534 mm2 required to consider these beams as doubly reinforced beams according to ACI 318M-14 [29], hence,
these bars worked as holding bars.
Fig. 6 illustrates strains in lacings located at or near the mid-span and strains of the vertical stirrups of V-3/12 specimen
(at the mid-span). Before the initiation of the first flexural crack, the strains of lacings were of negligible value, about 25
micro-strains. Beyond that, they raised slowly to reach values of 370 and 708 micro-strains for L60-3/12 and L45-3/12 beams,
respectively, when the tension bars yielded. Then, they increased significantly to attain maximum values of 1920 and 3401

Fig. 4. Central deflection of specimens with different configurations of shear reinforcement

 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 7

Fig. 5. Strains in tension bars of specimens with different configurations of shear reinforcement

micro-strains, respectively. The strain gauge installed in the L30-3/12 beam was not retrievable, due to probable damage
during the casting process. However, these results indicated clearly that the lacings were efficient and participated actively
in resisting the bending moment, especially after the yielding of the tension bars.
Furthermore, the flexural activity of lacings increased with the decrease of the inclination angle. This is because the
tension stresses induced by the bending moment are only dependent on the horizontal component of the lacing, which
increases as the lacing angle decreases. As a result, the vertical stirrups at mid-span showed insignificant strain values
throughout the test since they were installed vertically.
The records of strain gauges mounted on lacings and vertical stirrups in or near to the mid-shear span are drawn in Fig. 7.
From the figure, it is obvious that the lacing bars of 30 degrees did not contribute to resisting the diagonal tension stresses
since the shear cracks caused by these stresses were crossed by only two bars in this beam. Moreover, these cracks were
observed to be located outside an expected location where the strain gauge was installed. However, the lacings with 45 and
60 degrees in directions were found to be effective in holding web cracks as much as vertical stirrups did, and they gave
noticeable readings once cracks developed. The strain values recorded in V-3/12 and L60-3/12 beams were found to be nearly
identical, reaching 1512 and 1465 micro-strains, respectively. The L45-3/12 specimen was the only one that arrived at the
yielding stage (2755 micro-strains).
Fig. 8 compares concrete strains measured at the top surface in mid-span of V-3/12, L30-3/12, L45-3/12, and L60-3/12
beams. It is evident that the load-concrete strain responses of the four beams were similar throughout the loading history.
Initially, the concrete strains increased gradually and almost linearly. After yielding tension bars, they exhibited a significant
increment in strain until the failure load. Furthermore, the laced beams experienced concrete damage at convergent loads,
ranging between 181 and 188 kN.

Fig. 6. Strains in lacings and stirrups at the flexural span of specimens with different configurations of shear reinforcement
8 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

Fig. 7. Strains in lacings and stirrups at the shear span of specimens with different configurations of shear reinforcement

For the same load level, the laced beams displayed concrete strains larger than the beamwith conventional stirrups. This is because
of the need for an additional compressive force in concrete to balance an increment in tensile forces produced by the lacings.

4.3. Effect of tension reinforcement ratio

The test observations of L45-2/8 and L45-3/16 specimens were compared with those of the L45-3/12 beam. This
comparison aims to assess the contribution of lacings in the flexural strength of RCMD beams to determine the effect of the
tensile reinforcement ratio. The L45-2/8 and L45-3/16 are similar to the L45-3/12 beam, except for the area of tension bars.
The area in the L45-2/8 and L45-3/16 beams were 29.6% and 177.8% of that in L45-3/12 beam, respectively.
The load-central deflections of these beams are shown in Fig. 9, where a divergence in these responses was noticed soon
after the initiation of flexural cracks. The L45-3/16 specimen presented the stiffest behavior, among the three. Moreover, its
response was nearly linear up to a collapse load of 213 kN, which was approximately 14.5% larger than that of the L45-3/12,
exhibiting a shear mode of failure. The strength was found to decline abruptly immediately after the peak load.
It is worth mentioning that the L45-3/16 tension bars did not yield, as shown in Fig. 10 and listed in Table 3. In contrast, the
L45-2/8 specimen was found to yield prematurely at a load of 55 kN, which equals 39% of the L45-3/12 yield load. Thereafter,
an enormous increment in deflection was recorded to reach 15 mm at the ultimate load, which was 104 kN (about 55.9% of
L45-3/12 ultimate load). After that, the load decreased slowly up to the failure of the L45-2/8 beam by the pure flexure mode
showing the most ductile behavior among the three specimens.

Fig. 8. Concrete strains observed in beams with different configurations of shear reinforcement
 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 9

Strains in lacings at the flexural span of L45-2/8, L45-3/12, and L45-3/16 beams are shown in Fig. 11. As discussed
previously, the lacings were found to be effective once the tension bars have yielded. Therefore, marginal values reaching 365
micro-strains were recorded for the L45-3/16 beam. Furthermore, strains in lacings at the flexural span increased with
decreasing the area of tension bars. This means that the lacing bars became more efficient in resisting the tensile stresses for
lightly reinforced beams and vice versa. Nevertheless, the L45-2/8 lacing bars did not reach the yielding limit because of the
early crushing of the concrete.
Fig. 12 demonstrates the lacing bar strains at the shear span. It is clear that the three specimens exhibited remarkable
strain values beyond the development of the diagonal cracks. For the same load, larger values of strains were observed for the
lightly reinforced beam because the dowel force action, which withstands significant shear stresses, decreased as the tension
bar area decreased [30]. However, the lacings located at the shear span compensate for this reduction in the dowel force. The
lacing strain of the L45-2/8 beam at the ultimate stage was the smallest among the three specimens because the web cracks
did not expand a lot to cause failure.
The load-top concrete strain curves of the L45-2/8, L45-3/12, and L45-3/16 specimens are plotted in Fig. 13. The curve of
the L45-2/8 beam was comparable to that of the L45-3/12 beam, where a noteworthy increase in strains was developed
immediately after the initiation of the flexural cracks. Thereafter, a sharp jump in strain was recorded as the tension bars
began to yield. At failure, both specimens exhibited a severe increase in strain, indicating the crushing of concrete at the
beam top surface. The L45-3/16 behavior was approximately linear and showed the smallest value at failure since this
specimen experienced pure shear failure.

4.4. Ductility

One of the essential mechanical features to assess the structural behavior of RC elements is the ductility, which defines
the ability of these elements to experience remarkable plastic deformations before the collapse [31–33]. Many approaches
have been reported by previous researches to calculate the ductility depending on the definition of ultimate load, at which
the ultimate deflection is considered and divided by that at yield load to calculate the ductility index. The most of the
available literature shows that the value of the ultimate load can be considered at a load equals from 0.8 to 0.99 of the peak
load in the post peak zone [34]. The most popular one was adopted in this study, in which the ductility is determined as a
ratio of the deflection at 0.85% of the peak load on the descending branch of the load-deflection response, D0.85, to a
deflection at a yielding load, Dy. In general, only the L45-3/12 and L45-2/8 beams experienced deflections higher than the
D0.85; the others failed before dropping to 85% of the peak loads. Therefore, the deflections, recorded at the end of tests, were
considered as the D0.85 for these beams. Table 3 shows the ductility values of the tested beams, except for the L45-3/16, that
failed in the brittle shear mode before yielding the tensile reinforcement.
It is evident from Table 3 that the ductility index was noticeably affected due to the existence of the lacings. Compared to
the V-3/12 control beam, the ductility of the L45-3/12 significantly increased by about 116.7%, while the increase in the
ductility of the L60-3/12 was marginal, nearly 2.3%. In contrast, the L30-3/12 showed a drop in the ductility, about 14.2%,
under that of the V-3/12 beam. These results stated that when the lacing angle was small, the horizontal component force of
the lacings was high. Hence, the contribution of lacings in the flexural stresses became significant, leading to a decrease in
the ductility, as happened in the L30-3/12 beams. For the larger angle of lacing, this contribution became slight, and thus the
ductility did not influenced remarkably. For beams with a constant lacing’s angle and different ratios of flexural

Fig. 9. Central deflection of beams with different tension bar areas

10 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

Fig. 10. Strains in tension bars of beams with different tension bar areas

Fig. 11. Strains in lacings located at the flexural span of the beams with different tension bar areas

reinforcement, the results demonstrated that the ductility index reduced as the tensile reinforcement ratio increased, as
expected. The ductility of the L45-3/12 was half that of the L45-2/8.

5. The theoretical strength of beams

As stated earlier, the UFC [28] was followed in detailing the lacing reinforcement of beams. However, this manual deals with
structural elements subjected to dynamic loads, especially explosions. For elements under static loads, the UFC [28] suggests
using a traditional standard. Herein, the well-known ACI 318M-14 code [29] was used to evaluate the strength of the six beams.
It is worth stating that there is no code taking into account the contribution of lacings in the flexural strength of the RC
elements, where lacings are considered as only shear reinforcement. According to the ACI 318M-14 code [29], the nominal
flexural and shear strengths of beams can be evaluated using Eqs. (1) and (2), respectively. To ease the calculations, the slight
contribution of top longitudinal bars in the flexural strength was ignored.
fy
Mn ¼ rf   f y bd ð1  0:59rf  
2
0 Þ ð1Þ
fc

qffiffiffiffi
0 Av f yt ðsina þ cosaÞd
V n ¼ 0:17 f c  bd þ ð2Þ
s
 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 11

Fig. 12. Strains in lacings located at the shear span of the beams with different tension bar areas

Fig. 13. Concrete strains observed in beams with different tension bar areas

0
Where f y and rf   are the yield strength and ratio of the tensile reinforcement, respectively; f c is the compressive strength of
concrete; b and d are the effective depth and width of the beam, respectively;  f yt  and Av are the yield strength and the area
of shear reinforcement (stirrups or lacings), respectively;  a is the angle of lacings, it was set as 90 for stirrups; s is the
spacing between shear reinforcements.
The ultimate theoretical forces for the six beams are summarized in Table 4 as the smallest value of Eqs. (3) and (4), where
a is the shear span.
Mn
Pf ¼ 2 ð3Þ
a

Pv ¼ 2V n ð4Þ
Table 4 also includes the theoretical failure modes of the beams and compares the ACI code predictions and the test
results. The code estimations were 50% to 94% of those obtained in tests with an average of 79% and a standard deviation of
0.16. This means that the estimations of the ACI 318M-14 code were acceptable and safe. Moreover, the code predicted the
12 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

Table 4
Comparison the ACI 318M-14 code predictions and test results

Group number Specimen Experimental ACI 318M-14 Predicted/Failure

loads
Failure load, Pf (kN) Failure mode Failure load, Pp (kN) Failure mode
1 V-3/12 171 Flexural + shear 153 Flexural 0.89
L30-3/12 183 Flexural + shear 135 Shear 0.74
L45-3/12 186 flexural 154 Flexural 0.83
L60-3/12 188 flexural 152 Flexural 0.81
2 L45-2/8 104 flexural 52 Flexural 0.5
L45-3/16 213 shear 201 Shear 0.94
Average 0.79
SD 0.16

failure modes precisely for beams failed in either flexural or shear. However, the code was not able to predict the combined
failure mode, as shown for the V-3/12 and L30-3/12 beams.

6. The FE Analysis

In order to study the behavior of laced moderately deep beams subjected to monotonic loading in more detail, a
numerical investigation using the FE package ABAQUS 6.14 [35] was adopted. ABAQUS is capable of precisely simulating the

Fig. 14. Details of the simulated specimen

Fig. 15. Behavior of concrete under uniaxial load in (a) tension and (b) compression [10]
 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 13

nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete elements [24,35,36]. In this section, the adopted procedure of 3D finite element
analysis (FEA) is illustrated in detail.

6.1. Methodology

Although the tested beams were symmetrical, the size of the whole specimenwas simulated. To prevent the occurrence of the
shear locking, 8-nodes hexahedral elements (C3D8R) were selected for concrete, while the reinforcement bars were modeled
using linear truss elements of 2-nodes (T3D2). A perfect bond was assumed between the steel bars and concrete. The loading and
supporting steel plates were also represented by C3D8R elements, and no slippage was allowed at contact regions (tie contact
optionwas selected). The reactions were defined at the mid-bottom surface of the supporting plates. Fig.14 displays the details of
simulated beams. The analysis of beams was performed using the static-general in ABAQUS/Standard. In the static-general
analysis, the load was applied gradually from zero to the ultimate value of about 110% of that of tests.

6.2. Material modeling

Unlike steel, concrete exhibits a completely different behavior in compression and tension. To take this phenomenon into
accounts, ABAQUS supposes a concrete damage plasticity model (CDPM), which effectively defines the two failure
mechanisms, namely cracking and crushing, that take place in concrete, as shown in Fig. 15 [37]. The CDPM was introduced
by Lubliner et al. [38], and was later developed by Lee and Fenves [39]. The CDPM was adopted in this investigation
The compression behavior of concrete was introduced in the CDPM, according to the procedure of Eurocode EN 1992-1-1
[40], which is described in Eq. (5).

0 kh  h2
sc ¼ f c   ð5Þ
1 þ ðk  2Þh

Fig. 16. Calibration of the V-3/12 model

14 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

The factors k and h were determined based on Eqs. (6) and (7), respectively.
ec1
k ¼ 1:05 Ec 0 ð6Þ
fc

ec
h¼ ð7Þ
ec1
0
Where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete, ec1 is the strain corresponding to f c , and ec is the concrete strain at a stress of
sc .
Eq. (8) was used to evaluate the strain ec1 , as follows;<– –>
The concrete compressive strength,  s c , was defined until reaching the ultimate strength,  ecu , which is determined using
Eq. (9).
The behavior of concrete in tension was introduced in the CDPM using the relationship proposed by Wang and Hsu [41], as
qffiffiffiffi
0
illustrated in Eq. (10).ecr is the cracking strain at cracking stress, which is equal to f cr ¼ 0:61 f c .
The lower part of Eq. (10) represents the tension stiffening owing to the existence of tensile reinforcement and aggregate
interlocking in fuzzy cracks. The tension stiffening makes the concrete stress decreases gradually, and this part was assumed
to continue up to reaching a strain equal to ten times of cracking strain,  ecr , as recommended by Kmiecik and Kamin  ski [42].
The compressive and tensile damage parameters (dc and  dt ), which range from zero when the material is undamaged to
1.0 for full-damaged material, can be determined once the behaviors of concrete in compression and tension are defined.
These parameters are equal to one minus the ratio of the stress in the decline part of the behavior to the peak stress [42].

Fig. 17. FEA versus experimental deflection observations of the six beams
 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 15

Table 5
Comparison experimental and FEA results of the tested beams

Group number Specimen Experimental FEA FEA/test resuts (%)

Yield load, Py (kN) Failure load, Pf (kN) Yield load, Py (kN) Failure load, Pf (kN) Yield load Failure load
1 V-3/12 142 171 141.5 163.11 99.6 95.4
L30-3/12 162 183 161.6 186.96 99.8 102.2
L45-3/12 141 186 162.1 185.23 115.0 99.6
L60-3/12 148 188 152.9 175.54 103.3 93.4
2 L45-2/8 55 104 65 96.37 118.2 92.7
L45-3/16 No yield 213 No yield 225.08 No yield 105.7
Average 107.2 98.1
SD 8.8 5.2

Fig. 18. Stress distribution on the beam surfaces at a load of 163.1 kN

16 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

The CDPM also requires five additional parameters to define the failure criterion, namely the shape factor (kc), the stress
ratio (s bo/ s co), the eccentricity (e), the viscosity (m), and the dilation angle (c). The first three parameters were taken, as
recommended by ABAQUS as 0.667, 1.16, and 0.1, respectively, while the last two parameters were inspected. In this study, the
steel bars were defined as the elastic-perfectly plastic material with the modulus of elasticity of 200 GPa and Poisson’s ratio
of 0.3.

6.3. Model Calibration

The V-3/12 beam was used to calibrate the finite element model. In the FEA, the viscosity parameter (m) was varied from
0.00005 to 0.005, as shown in Fig. 16a. This parameter, however, should be 15% of the increment of time to enhance the
solution with no significant alteration in results [43]. This limit could not be fairly applied since the time step could not be
adopted in an issue of extreme nonlinearity such as in reinforced concrete members [44].
The viscosity parameter was found to have an effect on the yield load, as the yield load increased with the increase of
m. From the calibration studies, it was concluded that the m of 0.0005 was in excellent agreement with the experimental
results.
Brittle materials, such as concrete, experience a great change in volume because of the inelastic strains. This criterion
known as dilatancy is captured in CDPM by the dilation angle, c. The dilation angle normally ranges between 31 and 42 .
o o

Here, three values of the c were inspected (31, 35 and 42 ). It was observed that no considerable difference was seen in the

V-3/12 behavior with the varying of c, as shown in Fig. 16b. The c of 35
was used in all finite element analyses.
In order to inspect the mesh convergence, three different element volumes were nominated (15, 25 and 35 mm). These
values were selected such that it is larger than the aggregate size used (12 mm) and small enough to prevent complications of
hourglassing and distortion in C3D8R elements [44]. Fig. 16c shows that all three sizes have conformable load-deflection
responses with no significant difference in the each other. However, the element size of 25 mm was found to be more suitable
for saving the analysis time and post processing.

6.4. FEA observations

The calibrated model for the V-3/12 beam was adopted in simulating all the other specimens. The results of the FEA are
plotted in Fig. 17 in terms of load versus displacement at the mid-span for the six beams under investigation. The load-central
deflection responses of the FEA traced the corresponding experimental ones excellently. Table 5 compares the results of the
FEA and tests in terms of yielding and ultimate loads. The accuracy of the FEA in predicting the yield and ultimate loads of
beams reached 107% and 98%, with a standard deviation of 8.8% and 5.2%, respectively, compared to the test results.
Moreover, the FEA results were more accurate than the estimations of the ACI 318M-14 code in predicting the ultimate loads
of beams. Compared to the ultimate loads of tests, the ACI 318M-14 gave an error percentage of 21% with a standard deviation
of 16% (Table 4), while the error percentage in the FEA was marginal, about 1.9% with a standard deviation of 5.2%.
However, the FEA showed stiffer behavior than the experiments did, especially at the onset of the analysis before yielding
of reinforcing bars. The reason for that can be attributed to the non-homogeneity in concrete, shrinkage and handling cracks
that generally develop in concrete specimens before testing and the perfect bond that is assumed in the FEA between
reinforcing bars and the surrounding concrete. Besides, the FEA could not capture the softening in loads due to adopting the
load-controlled procedure. In this procedure, the load is gradually increased, and the analysis stops suddenly without
dedicating any softening once significant distortions accumulate within a few elements.
In the term of ultimate displacement (at the end of analyses), the FEA models exhibited slightly higher deflections as
compared to the experiments, except for the L45-2/8 beam. In the L45-2/8 beam, high plasticity attained because of
providing a small tension bar area, leading to limitations of the FEA before the convergence reached.

Fig. 19. Stress distribution across the beams’ depth at a load of 163.1 kN
 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 17

Fig. 20. Stress distribution in reinforcement bars at a load of 163.1 kN

Crack patterns observed in the FEA models showed an acceptable similarity with those recognized in the experiments, as displayed
in Fig. 3. In this figure, the black lines embedded in the FEA crack patterns point out the real cracks developed during the tests.
For an even comparison of responses of different specimens in FEA, all models were contrasted at the same load, 163.1 kN,
which is the FEA ultimate load of the reference model (V-3/12). The comparisons included the distribution of normal stresses
along and across beams, stresses in the reinforcing bars, and the variation of stresses along the bottom bars, as plotted in Figs.18–
21. In these figures, the FEA results of the L45-2/8 model were not included since this model failed at a load of less than 163.1 kN.
Fig. 18 illustrates the distribution of stresses along the beams, where the sequence of colors from blue to red refers to the
gradation of the compressive stresses from highest to lowest, respectively, while the grey color displays the tension stresses.
Higher compressive stresses seem to be spreading along the flexural span at approximately the top third of the beams, while
they decrease outside this region. Moreover, the compressive arch action is more distinguished in laced beams than in the V-
3/12 beam. In the V-3/12 model, the compression struts are discontinuous to the supports where the tension stresses (grey
zone) seem to be entirely separated from the compression stresses in contrast to laced models where interaction between
compression and tension stresses is evident. This observation could be attributed to the ability of lacings to prevent the
18 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

Fig. 21. Stress distribution along the bottom bars at a load of 163.1 kN

creation of longitudinal cracks, which typically occur beyond the supports in beams with relatively small spans due to high
bond stresses in these zones.
The stress distribution across the beams’ depth is depicted in Fig. 19. It can be noticed that the neutral axis of the laced
beams is located lower than that of the V-3/12 beam. In other words, the compression depth of concrete was larger for laced
beams, and this depth increases as the lacings’ angle decreases. This conclusion confirms that the lacings also work as
flexural reinforcing bars due to their horizontal components. These components became more significant as the angle of
lacings decreases, and thus, the tension reinforcement ratio increases, leading to enlarging the compression depth that is
required to achieve the equilibrium condition. The existence of lacings also limits the cracks propagation upward, and hence
the neutral axes of laced beams are positioned deeper away from their top surfaces compared to the beam having stirrups.
Fig. 20 summarizes the stresses developed in the reinforcing bars along the beam at the load of 163.1 kN. The stresses
induced in bottom bars are higher in the flexural span of beams, especially at the mid-span. At the shear span, these stresses
are smaller. On the other hand, the lacings produce significant stresses along the longitudinal axis of beams in contrast to the
conventional stirrups, which sustain only small stresses, as represented by the blue color in the V-3/12 beam. It can be noted
that for beams having the same number of tension bars, the distance at which tension bars reach the highest stresses (red
color) was shorter in laced beams than in the reference beam V-3/12, this demonstrates the capability of lacings to restrict
the spreading of flexural cracks along the length of beams.
Finally, the tension stresses in the bottom bars are plotted in Fig. 21. In this figure, two facts can be observed. The first, in the
shear span, the stresses in the tension bars of laced beams are smaller than in the reference beam with stirrups owing to the
contribution of lacings in resisting flexural stresses. The second fact is that the stresses of tension reinforcement of laced beams
are approximately equal to that of the V-3/12 within the flexural span. The V-3/12 model fails when the bottom bars are yielded,
while the laced beams continue to sustain more load due to lacings, which can withstand overstresses from the bottom bars after
they are yielded. The bottom bars in the L45-3/16 experience the lowest stresses of all beams since this beam was over reinforced.

7. Parametric study

The validated FEA was employed to investigate further parameters that influence the structural response of RCMD beams,
including the area of lacing bars (diameter of bars) and the ratio of shear span to the effective depth (a/d).

Fig. 22. Influence of lacing bar diameter

 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 19

Table 6
FEA observations for beams with different lacings’ diameters

Lacings’ diameter (mm) Yielding load (kN) Failure load (kN) Ductility index
6.0 161 182.2 4.9
8.0 169 185.2 4.9
10.0 175 187.4 5.13

Table 7
FEA observations for beams with different a/d ratios

a/d ratio Shear reinforcement Yielding load (kN) Failure load (kN) Ductility index
1.13 45
-lacing 255 297.9 2.3
Vertical stirrups 180 209.9 2.3
2.00 45
-lacing 169 185.2 4.9
Vertical stirrups 149 163.1 3.6
2.38 45
-lacing 132 149.0 8.6
Vertical stirrups 122 139.4 5.53

7.1. Area of lacing bars

To explore the effect of the area of lacing bars on the structural behavior of moderate deep beams, three diameters of
lacing bars were selected (6, 8, and 10 mm); the other properties were kept constant, and the adopted lacing angle was 45
.
The load-deflection responses of the three beams are plotted in Fig. 22. This figure shows that all three beams displayed
approximately the same stiffness until yielding loads, and slight differences are observed after that. The FEA results are also

Fig. 23. Influence of the a/d ratio

20 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

listed in Table 6; it can be seen that although the diameter of lacings was enlarged by 66.7% (from 6 mm to 10 mm), the
increases in yielding and ultimate loads were negligible, about 8.7% and 2.9%, respectively. Likewise, the enhancement in the
ductility index due to enlarging the lacings’ diameter was slight, below 4.7%. It is worth mentioning that displacements at the
ends of the FEA were considered as D0.85 in the calculation of the ductility index since the FEA could not capture the softening
in loads, as stated previously.

7.2. Shear span to effective depth ratio (a/d)

In order to investigate the influence of lacing bars on the behavior of RCMD beams, beams with 45
lacing bars were
numerically investigated against similar ones constructed with vertical stirrups, where three a/d ratios of 1.13, 2 and 2.38
were studied to cover the a/d range of moderate deep beams. The FEA observations are listed in Table 7. The results confirmed
that the lacing bars remarkably improved the strength of moderate deep beams compared to beams with vertical stirrups.
Generally, this enhancement was the largest for the smallest a/d ratio (41.9% when a/d = 1.13), while it decreased to realize
6.9% as a/d ratio was increased to 2.38. These results were a reflection of the ability of lacing bars to resist shear stresses,
which increased with the decrease of a/d ratio.
Fig. 23 compares the responses of beams with stirrups and lacings, with different a/d ratio. For those with a/d less than
2.38, the laced and stirrup beams exhibited almost similar stiffness before the yielding of the bottom bars. Then, the laced
beams showed stiffer behavior, compared to the counterparts with stirrups. For an a/d of 2.38, the laced beam experienced
stiffer response than the stirrup beam from the onset of the analysis. For the three a/d ratios, the laced beams showed higher
displacements at failure loads, compared to beams with stirrups. For the same a/d ratio, the laced beams exhibited higher
ductility than the beams with stirrups did, except for a/d ratio of 1.13. In this ratio, both beams showed similar ductility. For a/
d ratios of 2.00 and 2.38, the ductility of laced beams were 36% and 55% higher than those of beams with stirrups. This
significant enhancement in the ductility of beams can be attributed to the ability of lacings in reducing and restricting the
growth of flexural and diagonal cracks with increasing the applied load.

8. Conclusions

In this work, experimental and numerical studies were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of lacing reinforcement as
a viable replacement to conventional stirrups in moderate deep reinforced concrete beams. The flexural behavior of the
investigated beams was evaluated using the load-deflection curves, in addition to the steel and concrete strains. The
followings are the most important conclusions drawn from the experimental and finite element studies:

1 Moderate deep beams with the a/d ratio of 1.0 to 2.0 show different structural behavior than deep and ordinary beams. The
deep beams usually fail in the pure shear mode, and the ordinary beams experience the flexural failure, whereas the
moderate deep beams collapse due to the combined flexural-shear mode.
2 Three angles (30o , 45o , and 60o ) for lacings were investigated to enhance the structural behavior of moderate deep beams.
The behaviors of beams were found to be affected by the lacings’ angle significantly. The optimal structural response was
observed for a moderate deep beam with 45o lacings, compared to beams with conventional stirrups.
3 The reference beam V-3/12 with stirrups failed in the combined flexural-shear mode. Replacing the stirrups with lacings
inclined at angles higher than 30o could change the failure mode to the pure flexural mode, as shown in the beams L45-3/
12 and L60-3/12.
4 Compared to the beam with vertical stirrups (V-3/12), the lacings were found to improve the beam stiffness noticeably,
especially beyond the yielding of the tension bars, attaining 25% to 43.7% enhancements. However, the enhancement in
the failure loads was relatively limited and did not exceed 10%.
5 In terms of ultimate deflections at collapse loads, the beam with 45
lacings experienced the largest deflection, which is
approximately 1.72 times what was reached in the V-3/12 reference beam. The other beams gave close deflections to that
of the V-3/12.
6 The strain records in lacings confirmed that the lacings were functional in resisting the longitudinal and diagonal tension
stresses developed in the flexural and shear spans, respectively. In the flexural span, this resistance increased with
decreasing the lacing angle, while in the shear span, an inverse relationship was shown. On the other hand, increasing the
tension bars area of the laced beam by 77% resulted in changing the failure mode to the brittle pure shear one.
7 The ductility index was found to be remarkably influenced by lacings’ angle. Compared to the reference beam V-3/12, the
ductility of moderate deep beams increased when the lacings’ angles were greater than 30o . The maximum increase was
obtained for an angle of 45o , which was 116.7% higher than that of the V-3/12.
8 In comparison with the test results, the developed FEA displayed a good agreement in terms of the ultimate load,
deflections, and crack patterns. Error percentages in the ultimate load were within 7.3%, which signifies that the FEA
developed in this study is suitable to perform more parametric studies in laced moderate deep beams. Also, the FEA results
were more accurate than the ACI 318M-14 code predictions, compared to the test results.
9 Parametric studies conducted using the developed FEA showed that a marginal enhancement in the structural responses
of beams with increasing the diameter of lacing bars. Parametric studies also showed the superiority of lacing bars over
conventional vertical stirrups in terms of strength and ductility of moderate deep beams with the a/d ratio, ranging from
 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363 21

1.13 to 2.38. The strength of beams was found to increase as the shear span-to-effective depth ratio decreases, whereas the
ductility showed the opposite.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

[1] M. Słowik, Shear failure mechanism in concrete beams, Procedia Materials Science. 3 (2014) 1977–1982, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
mspro.2014.06.318.
[2] T.S. Salaman, Reinforced Concrete Moderate Deep Beams with Embedded PVC Pipes, Wasit Journal of Engineering Sciences 3 (2015) 19–29. https://
www.iasj.net/iasj?func=fulltext&aId=116356.
[3] J.G.M. David, M. Rogowsky, See Y. Ong, Tests of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, ACI Journal Proceedings 83 (1986) 614–623, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.14359/10558.
[4] W.Y. Lu, H.T. Hsiao, C.L. Chen, S.M. Huang, M.C. Lin, Tests of reinforced concrete deep beams, Computers and Concrete. 15 (2015) 357–372, doi:http://dx.
doi.org/10.12989/cac.2015.15.3.357.
[5] J.M. Mhalhal, T.S. Al-gasham, H.A. Jabir, New Technique to Enhance the Shear Performance of RC Deep Beams Using Mild Steel Plates, International
Journal of Engineering & Technology. 7 (2018) 86–94.
[6] E. Nawy, Reinforced concrete: A fundamental approach, sixth, Pearson Education International, New Jersey, USA, 2009.
[7] W. Nadir, M.K. Dhahir, F.H. Naser, A Compression Field Based Model to Assess the Shear Strength of Concrete slender Beams without Web
Reinforcement, Case Studies in Construction Materials. (2018).
[8] S. Patel, V. Khoda, H.K. Patel, V.R. Patel, I.I. Pandya, Prediction of Ultimate Shear Strength of Moderate Deep Concrete Beam Including Size Effect,
International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). 04 (2017) 813–818.
[9] H.K. Lee, S.H. Cheong, S.K. Ha, C.G. Lee, Behavior and performance of RC T-section deep beams externally strengthened in shear with CFRP sheets,
Composite Structures. 93 (2011) 911–922, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2010.07.002.
[10] W. Li, C.K.Y. Leung, Shear span–depth ratio effect on behavior of RC beam shear strengthened with full-wrapping FRP strip, Journal of Composites for
Construction. 20 (2016)4015067.
[11] A. Albidah, A. Abadel, H. Abbas, T. Almusallam, Y. Al-Salloum, Experimental and analytical study of strengthening schemes for shear deficient RC deep
beams, Construction and Building Materials. 216 (2019) 673–686, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.05.024.
[12] M. Ibrahim, T. Wakjira, U. Ebead, Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete deep beams using near-surface mounted hybrid carbon/glass fibre
reinforced polymer strips, Engineering Structures. 210 (2020)110412, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110412.
[13] T.G. Wakjira, U. Ebead, Internal transverse reinforcement configuration effect of EB/NSE-FRCM shear strengthening of RC deep beams, Composites Part
B: Engineering. 166 (2019) 758–772, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.03.004.
[14] R. Azam, K. Soudki, J.S. West, M. Noël, Shear strengthening of RC deep beams with cement-based composites, Engineering Structures. 172 (2018)
929–937.
[15] V.S. Parameswaran, N. Lakshmanan, P. Srinivasulu, T.S. Krishnamoorthy, K. Balasubramanian, T.S. Thandavamoorthy, M. Arumugam, Application of
laced reinforced concrete construction techniques to blast-resistant structures, Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai, 1986 SERC Report No.
RCC-SR-86-1.
[16] A.A. Allawi, H.A. Jabir, Experimental behavior of laced reinforced concrete one way slab under static load, Journal of Engineering. 22 (2016) 42–59.
[17] N. Anandavalli, N. Lakshmanan, G.M. Samuel Knight, N.R. Iyer, J. Rajasankar, Performance of Laced Steel-Concrete Composite (LSCC) beams under
monotonic loading, Engineering Structures. 41 (2012) 177–185, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.033.
[18] N. Anandavalli, N. Lakshmanan, N.R. Iyer, A. Prakash, K. Ramanjaneyulu, J. Rajasankar, C. Rajagopal, Behaviour of a Blast Loaded Laced Reinforced
Concrete Structure, Defence Science Journal. 62 (2012) 284–289.
[19] C.K. Madheswaran, G. Gnanasundar, N. Gopalakrishnan, Performance of Laced Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete (LRGPC) Beams Under Monotonic
Loading, Advances in Structural Engineering (2015) 355–367, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2190-6.
[20] N. Lakshmanan, Laced reinforced concrete construction technique for blast resistant design of structures, Proceedings of the Sixth Structural
Engineering Convention, SEC-2008 (2008) 18–20.
[21] T.S.S. Al-Gasham, Experimental Behavior of Steel-Concrete-Steel Sandwich Beams with Truss Configuration of Shear Connectors, Journal of
Engineering 22 (2016) 18–29.
[22] S.C. Woodson, Lacing Versus Stirrups-An Experimental Study of Shear Reinforcement in Blast-Resistant Structures, ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS
EXPERIMENT STATION VICKSBURG MS STRUCTURES LAB, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, 1992.
[23] M. Nehdi, Z. Omeman, H. El-Chabib, Optimal efficiency factor in strut-and-tie model for FRP-reinforced concrete short beams with (1.5 < a/d < 2.5),
Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions. 41 (2008) 1713–1727, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1617/s11527-008-9359-9.
[24] T.S. Al-Gasham, J.M. Mhalhal, H.A. Jabir, Improving punching behavior of interior voided slab-column connections using steel sheets, Engineering
Structures. 199 (2019)109614, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109614.
[25] M. Fernández Ruiz, A. Muttoni, Size effect in shear and punching shear failures of concrete members without transverse reinforcement: Differences
between statically determinate members and redundant structures, Structural Concrete. 19 (2018) 65–75.
[26] H. Chen, W.-J. Yi, Z.J. Ma, Shear size effect in simply supported RC deep beams, Engineering Structures. 182 (2019) 268–278, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.062.
[27] L. Jin, T. Wang, X. Jiang, X. Du, Size effect in shear failure of RC beams with stirrups: Simulation and formulation, Engineering Structures. 199 (2019)
109573, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109573.
[28] Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions, Department of defense, Washington, DC, USA, 2008.
[29] ACI 318 Commitee, Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14): commentary on building code requirements for structural
concrete (ACI 318R-14), American Concrete Institute. ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2014.
[30] B. El-Ariss, Behavior of beams with dowel action, Engineering Structures. 29 (2007) 899–903, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.07.008.
[31] T.S. Al-Gasham, J.M. Mhalhal, H.A. Jabir, Influence of post-heating on the behavior of reinforced self-compacting concrete hollow columns, Structures.
22 (2019) 266–277, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.08.013.
[32] T.S. Al-Gasham, A.N. Hilo, M.A. Alawsi, Structural behavior of reinforced concrete one-way slabs voided by polystyrene balls, Case Studies in
Construction Materials. 11 (2019)e00292, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2019.e00292.
[33] A.A. Abbass, S.R. Abid, M. Özakça, Experimental investigation on the effect of steel fibers on the flexural behavior and ductility of high-strength
concrete hollow beams, Advances in Civil Engineering 2019 (2019) 1–13, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/8390345.
[34] A.A. Abbass, S.R. Abid, F.H. Arna’ot, R.A. Al-Ameri, M. Özakça, Flexural response of hollow high strength concrete beams considering different size
reductions, Structures. 23 (2020) 69–86, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.10.001.
[35] ABAQUS, Analysis user’s manual 6.14, Dassault Systems Simulia Corp: Providence RI, USA, (2014) .
22 T.S. Al-Gasham et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials 13 (2020) e00363

[36] R. Rahnavard, M. Naghavi, M. Aboudi, M. Suleiman, Investigating modeling approaches of buckling-restrained braces under cyclic loads, Case Studies in
Construction Materials. 8 (2018) 476–488.
[37] M. Kaya, C. Yaman, Modelling the reinforced concrete beams strengthened with GFRP against shear crack, COMPUTERS AND CONCRETE. 21 (2018)
127–137.
[38] J. Lubliner, J. Oliver, S. Oller, E. Onate, A plastic-damage model for concrete, International Journal of Solids and Structures. 25 (1989) 299–326.
[39] J. Lee, G.L. Fenves, Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic Loading of Concrete Structures, Journal of Engineering Mechanics. 124 (1998) 892–900, doi:http://
dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892).
[40] B.S. Institution, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures: Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, British Standards Institution, 2004.
[41] T. Wang, T.T.C. Hsu, Nonlinear finite element analysis of concrete structures using new constitutive models, Computers & Structures. 79 (2001)
2781–2791.
[42] P. KMIECIK, M. KAMINSKI,  Modelling of reinforced concrete structures and composite structures with concrete strength degradation taken into
consideration, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering. 11 (2011) 623–636, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1644-9665(12)60105-8.
[43] J.H. Lee, G.L. Fenves, Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures, J. Eng. Mech. (ASCE) 124 (1998) 892–900, doi:http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892).
[44] A.S. Genikomsou, M.A. Polak, Finite element analysis of punching shear of concrete slabs using damaged plasticity model in ABAQUS, Engineering
Structures. 98 (2015) 38–48, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.04.016.