Load Capacity of Reinforced Concrete Continuous

Deep Beams
K. H. Yang1 and A. F. Ashour2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Most codes of practice, such as EC2 and ACI 318-05, recommend the use of strut-and-tie models for the design of reinforced
concrete deep beams. However, studies on the validity of the strut-and-tie models for continuous deep beams are rare. This paper evaluates
the strut-and-tie model specified by ACI 318-05 and mechanism analysis of the plasticity theory in predicting the load capacity of 75
reinforced concrete continuous deep beams tested in the literature. The influence of such main parameters as compressive strength of
concrete, shear span-to-overall depth ratio, main longitudinal bottom reinforcement, and shear reinforcement on the load capacity is also
investigated using both methods and experimental results. Experimental results were closer to the predictions obtained from the mecha-
nism analysis than the strut-and-tie model. The strut-and-tie model highly overestimated the load capacity of continuous deep beams
without shear reinforcement.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2008兲134:6共919兲
CE Database subject headings: Standards and codes; Continuous beams; Plasticity; Concrete, reinforced; Shear strength.

Introduction theory of plasticity, remarkably good correlation between plastic-

ity analysis of reinforced concrete structures and test results has
Reinforced concrete deep beams occur as transfer girders, pile been obtained when the concrete strength is modified by a reduc-
caps, and foundation walls in tall buildings. Although these tion factor called the effectiveness factor 共Nielsen 1984; Marti
members are frequently supported on several supports, extensive 1985; Wang et al. 1993; Ashour and Morley 1996兲. Lower bound
analytical 共Mau and Hsu 1989; Siao 1993; Wang et al. 1993; solutions for reinforced concrete beams, which also rely on plas-
Tjhin and Kuchma 2002兲 and experimental 共Smith and Vantsiotis ticity theory and generally take the form of a strut-and-tie model
1982; Tan et al. 1997; Tan and Lu 1999; Yang et al. 2003兲 inves- 共ACI 318-05兲, have recently received much attention 共ACI 2005;
tigations have focused on simply supported deep beams. Both Marti 1985; Mau and Hsu 1989; Siao 1993; Tan et al. 1997兲.
simple and continuous deep beams are quite dissimilar in the state ACI 318-05 共ACI 2005兲 specifies that the deep beam action
must be considered when designing beams having shear span-to-
of stresses of concrete struts, which are the main load transfer
depth ratio less than 2.0 or clear span-to-depth ratio not exceeding
element. The coexistence of high shear and high moment within
4.0, for which design method based on nonlinear analysis or
interior shear spans in continuous deep beams has a considerable
strut-and-tie model provided in its Appendix A should be used.
effect on crack propagation and effective strength of concrete
Strut-and-tie models are considered as a lower-bound solution
struts 共Ashour 1997; Asin 1999兲. Few experimental studies
based on equilibrium conditions of forces and ultimate strength of
共Rogowsky et al. 1986; Subedi 1998; Yang et al. 2007a,b兲 on
materials. They would provide an efficient and straight forward
continuous deep beams also showed that the load capacity of
analysis for estimating the load capacity of deep beams using
continuous deep beams would not be properly estimated by
schematic load transfer mechanisms. However, studies on the va-
formulas developed for simple deep beams. Therefore, proper de- lidity of the strut-and-tie model recommended by ACI 318-05 are
sign of continuous deep beams would require further investiga- rare even in simple deep beams 共Yang et al. 2007b兲.
tions to understand the influence of various parameters on their On the other hand, several researchers 共Wang et al. 1993;
load capacity. Ashour and Morley 1996; Ashour and Rishi 2000兲 developed
Although the stress-strain curve of a plain concrete specimen numerical techniques to predict the ultimate shear strength of
under compression is characterized by strain softening and not by deep beams using the upper-bound theorem of the plasticity
the yield plateau that would normally be required to apply the theory. Wang et al. 共1993兲 concluded that the prediction of shear
strength of simple deep beams using the upper-bound theorem
1
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, Mokpo was fairly successful. Ashour and Morley 共1996兲 and Ashour and
National Univ., Mokpo, Jeonnam, South Korea 共corresponding author兲. Rishi 共2000兲 developed simplified techniques based on the plas-
2
Senior Lecturer, School of Engineering, Design and Technology, ticity theory to predict the shear capacity of deep beams with
Univ. of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP, U.K. different supporting conditions and web openings. In addition, the
Note. Associate Editor: Bing Li. Discussion open until November 1, modes of failure observed in continuous deep beams tested
2008. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
共Rogowsky et al. 1986; Ashour 1997; Asin 1999兲 showed that the
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted mechanism analysis of failure based on the upper-bound theorem
for review and possible publication on September 20, 2006; approved on appeared very promising. The main aims of the present paper are:
August 8, 2007. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi- • to produce a comprehensive data base of continuous deep
neering, Vol. 134, No. 6, June 1, 2008. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2008/ beams tested by different researchers;
6-919–929/$25.00. • to evaluate the accuracy of both the strut-and-tie model rec-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008 / 919

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

 ommended by ACI 318-05 and mechanism analysis in predict- as the distance between the center of longitudinal top and bottom
ing the load capacity of continuous deep beams collected in reinforcing bars as below
the database;
• to study the effect of different parameters on the load capacity jd = h − c − c⬘ 共2兲
of continuous deep beams using the strut-and-tie and mecha-
nism analyses, and the results of the data base collected. where h = overall section depth; and c and c⬘ = cover of longitu-
dinal bottom and top reinforcement, respectively, as shown in
Fig. 1.
Database of Reinforced Concrete Continuous The nodes at the applied load point could be classified as a
Deep Beams CCC type, which is a hydrostatic node connecting both exterior
and interior compressive struts in sagging zone and a CCT type
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A total of 75 two-span top loaded reinforced concrete deep beams for longitudinal top reinforcement in hogging zone. In a CCC
were compiled from different sources as given in Table 1. Forty- type node having equal stresses on all in-plane sides, the ratio of
four specimens were tested by the current authors 共Ashour 1997; each face width of the hydrostatic node has to be the same as the
Yang et al. 2007a,b兲 and the rest were collected from Rogowsky ratio of forces meeting at the node to make the state of stress in
et al. 共1986兲, Subedi 共1998兲, and Asin 共1999兲. The shear span-to- the whole node region constant 共Marti 1985; CEB-FIP 1993兲.
overall depth ratio of deep beams in the database ranged from 0.5 Therefore, to accommodate both CCC type and CCT type nodes,
to 2.0. The test specimens were made of concrete having a very the width of each loading plate can be approximately subdivided
low compressive strength of 14.5 MPa and a high compressive into two parts in accordance with the ratio ␩ of the end support
strength of 68.2 MPa. Some test specimens had no web reinforce- reaction to the applied load. Most test results showed that the load
ment, whereas others were reinforced with vertical and horizontal transferred to end supports slightly increased in comparison with
shear reinforcement. The range of load capacity of test specimens that predicted by a linear finite element 共FE兲 analysis after the
was 180 to 1,483 kN. All beams were reported to fail in shear due occurrence of the first diagonal crack joining the edges of load
to a major diagonal crack within interior shear spans, joining the and intermediate support plates, but this difference is generally
edges of load and intermediate support plates. less than 7–10% 共Asin 1999; Yang et al. 2007b兲. Therefore, the
value of ␩ can be estimated from a linear FE analysis considering
shear deformation. The effective strut width is dependent on the
Strut-and-Tie Model Based on ACI 318-05 width of the tie and loading plate, and the slope of the strut.
Average effective widths of concrete struts uniformly tapered in
ACI 318-05 recommends using strut-and-tie models for design of interior 关共ws兲I兴 and exterior shear spans 关共ws兲E兴 can be calculated
discontinuity region members to which beam theory does not from
apply. However, it does not provide specific guidance on suitable
strut-and-tie models for different cases. For example, no specific 共wt⬘ + 2c⬘兲cos ␪ + 关0.5共l p兲I + 共1.0 − ␩兲共l p兲 P兴sin ␪
共ws兲I = 共3a兲
guidelines on the truss action identifying the load transfer mecha- 2
nism of horizontal and vertical shear reinforcing bars are pro-
vided. In strut-and-tie models of ACI 318-05, main load transfer
systems are struts representing compression stress fields in con- 共wt⬘ + 2c⬘兲cos ␪ + 关共l p兲E + ␩共l p兲 P兴sin ␪
共ws兲E = 共3b兲
crete and tie action of longitudinal reinforcement. Concrete struts 2
in deep beams commonly considered as bottle-shaped struts that
are generally idealized as prismatic or uniformly tapered mem- where 共l p兲 P, 共l p兲E, and 共l p兲I = width of loading, exterior support,
bers within shear spans 共Marti 1985; CEB-FIP 1993; CSA 1994; and interior support plates, respectively. wt⬘ = smaller of the height
AASHTO 1998兲. A tension tie represents one or several layers of of the plate anchored to longitudinal reinforcement wt and twice
steel reinforcement. ACI 318-05 requires the longitudinal rein- of the concrete cover c 共=2c兲 as shown in Fig. 1.
forcement to be distributed approximately uniformly over the The load transfer capacity of concrete struts depends on the
width of the tie. Nodes are the joints where axial forces in struts strut area and effective concrete compressive strength. Hence,
and ties intersect. load capacities of exterior and interior concrete struts are
Fig. 1 shows a schematic strut-and-tie model for continuous
deep beams subjected to two-point symmetrical top loads in ac- FE = ␯e f ⬘c bw共ws兲E 共4a兲
cordance with ACI 318-05 共Appendix A兲. There are two main
load transfer systems, one of which is the strut-and-tie action
formed with the longitudinal bottom reinforcement acting as a tie FI = ␯e f ⬘c bw共ws兲I 共4b兲
and the other is the strut-and-tie action due to the longitudinal top where ␯e = effectiveness factor of concrete that is introduced to
reinforcement. As the applied loads in the two-span continuous account for the limited ductility of concrete and to absorb differ-
deep beams are carried to supports through concrete struts of ent shortcomings of applying the theory of plasticity. AASHTO
exterior and interior shear spans, the load capacity of continuous LRFD Specification 共AASHTO 1998兲 and CSA A23.3-94 共CSA
deep beams Pn owing to failure of concrete struts is 1994兲 consider the effectiveness factor as a function of the
amount of transverse tensile strain, whereas EC 2 共BSI 2004兲
Pn = 共FE + FI兲sin ␪ 共1兲
gives it as a function of concrete strength. On the other hand,
where FE and FI = load capacities of exterior and interior concrete ACI 318-05 allows the use of effectiveness factor of 0.75 for
struts, respectively; and ␪ = angle between the concrete strut and concrete struts having the minimum amount of shear reinforce-
the longitudinal axis of the deep beam, which can be expressed as ment, regardless of concrete strength and the amount of trans-
tan−1共jd / a兲, where a = shear span. The distance between the cen- verse tensile strain. The minimum amount of shear reinforcement
ter of top and bottom nodes jd could be approximately assumed required in bottle-shaped struts, which is recommended to be

920 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

 Table 1. Basic Data of Existing Specimens and Comparison of Predicted and Measured Normalized Load Capacities
共␭n兲 pro.
␭n 共␭n兲Exp.

bw h f c⬘ L Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq.

Researcher Specimen mm mm MPa a / h mm ␳b ␳t ␳v ␳h ␾b ␾t ␾v ␾h Exp. 共6兲 共7兲 共6兲 共7兲
Yang et al.
L5NN 160 600 32.4 0.5 600 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.168 0.168 0.000 0.000 0.263 0.209 0.318 0.794 1.211
共2007a,b兲 L5NS 160 600 32.4 0.5 600 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.000 0.168 0.168 0.045 0.000 0.275 0.209 0.329 0.759 1.198
L5NT 160 600 32.4 0.5 600 0.010 0.010 0.006 0.000 0.168 0.168 0.089 0.000 0.288 0.209 0.337 0.726 1.174
L5SN 160 600 32.4 0.5 600 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.003 0.168 0.168 0.000 0.045 0.303 0.209 0.325 0.688 1.072
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

L5SS 160 600 32.4 0.5 600 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.168 0.168 0.045 0.045 0.340 0.261 0.352 0.766 1.034
L5TN 160 600 32.4 0.5 600 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.006 0.168 0.168 0.000 0.089 0.372 0.209 0.353 0.560 0.949
L10NN 160 600 32.1 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.170 0.170 0.000 0.000 0.143 0.162 0.167 1.136 1.168
L10NS 160 600 32.1 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.000 0.170 0.170 0.045 0.000 0.187 0.162 0.209 0.867 1.117
L10NT 160 600 32.1 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.006 0.000 0.170 0.170 0.090 0.000 0.250 0.162 0.256 0.649 1.023
L10SN 160 600 32.1 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.003 0.170 0.170 0.000 0.045 0.143 0.162 0.170 1.131 1.184
L10SS 160 600 32.1 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.170 0.170 0.045 0.045 0.191 0.203 0.220 1.062 1.154
L10TN 160 600 32.1 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.006 0.170 0.170 0.000 0.090 0.152 0.162 0.185 1.069 1.221
H6NN 160 600 65.1 0.6 720 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.180 0.202 0.169 1.121 0.939
H6NS 160 600 65.1 0.6 720 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.000 0.084 0.084 0.022 0.000 0.183 0.202 0.182 1.101 0.993
H6NT 160 600 65.1 0.6 720 0.010 0.010 0.006 0.000 0.084 0.084 0.045 0.000 0.210 0.202 0.193 0.960 0.921
H6SN 160 600 65.1 0.6 720 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.003 0.084 0.084 0.000 0.022 0.194 0.202 0.179 1.038 0.920
H6SS 160 600 65.1 0.6 720 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.084 0.084 0.022 0.022 0.221 0.252 0.192 1.140 0.867
H6TN 160 600 65.1 0.6 720 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.006 0.084 0.084 0.000 0.045 0.237 0.202 0.192 0.850 0.809
H10NN 160 600 68.2 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.097 0.162 0.097 1.665 1.000
H10NS 160 600 68.2 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.000 0.080 0.080 0.021 0.000 0.110 0.162 0.122 1.472 1.110
H10NT 160 600 68.2 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.006 0.000 0.080 0.080 0.042 0.000 0.162 0.162 0.146 1.004 0.902
H10SN 160 600 68.2 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.003 0.080 0.080 0.000 0.021 0.100 0.162 0.103 1.623 1.031
H10SS 160 600 68.2 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.080 0.080 0.021 0.021 0.120 0.203 0.128 1.686 1.064
H10TN 160 600 68.2 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.006 0.080 0.080 0.000 0.042 0.098 0.162 0.111 1.651 1.127
L5-40 160 400 32.4 0.5 400 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.175 0.175 0.000 0.000 0.369 0.308 0.351 0.836 0.952
L5-72 160 720 32.4 0.5 720 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.191 0.191 0.000 0.000 0.239 0.205 0.325 0.859 1.359
L10-42 160 400 32.4 1.0 800 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.175 0.175 0.000 0.000 0.173 0.229 0.182 1.326 1.052
L10-72 160 720 32.4 1.0 1440 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.191 0.191 0.000 0.000 0.134 0.167 0.170 1.246 1.268
H6-40 160 400 65.1 0.6 480 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.087 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.243 0.295 0.210 1.213 0.864
H6-72 160 720 65.1 0.6 864 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.095 0.095 0.000 0.000 0.156 0.201 0.163 1.288 1.046
H10-42 160 400 65.1 1.0 800 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.087 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.133 0.229 0.126 1.718 0.948
H10-72 160 720 65.1 1.0 1440 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.095 0.095 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.167 0.101 1.959 1.176
L5SS-W 160 600 32.1 0.5 600 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.170 0.170 0.045 0.045 0.320 0.261 0.358 0.814 1.116
L10SS-W 160 600 32.4 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.168 0.168 0.045 0.045 0.187 0.203 0.214 1.084 1.143
H6SS-W 160 600 65.1 0.6 720 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.084 0.084 0.022 0.022 0.227 0.252 0.192 1.112 0.846
H10SS-W 160 600 68.2 1.0 1200 0.010 0.010 0.003 0.003 0.080 0.080 0.021 0.021 0.135 0.203 0.128 1.499 0.946
Rogowsky 3 / 1.0 200 1000 28.9 1.0 2100 0.005 0.006 0.002 0.000 0.061 0.081 0.030 0.000 0.188 0.142 0.165 0.755 0.876
et al. 4 / 1.0 200 1000 28.5 1.0 2100 0.005 0.006 0.000 0.003 0.062 0.082 0.000 0.050 0.190 0.142 0.158 0.746 0.833
共1986兲 5 / 1.0 200 1000 36.9 1.0 2100 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.050 0.067 0.093 0.000 0.173 0.142 0.173 0.817 0.999
6 / 1.0 200 1000 35.8 1.0 2100 0.005 0.006 0.000 0.004 0.052 0.069 0.000 0.064 0.153 0.142 0.132 0.927 0.865
7 / 1.0 200 1000 34.5 1.0 2100 0.005 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.054 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.102 0.142 0.094 1.388 0.925
3 / 1.5 200 600 14.5 1.67 2100 0.009 0.011 0.002 0.000 0.287 0.345 0.059 0.000 0.230 0.159 0.276 0.692 1.204
4 / 1.5 200 600 32.5 1.67 2100 0.009 0.011 0.000 0.003 0.128 0.154 0.000 0.044 0.083 0.159 0.102 1.921 1.231
5 / 1.5 200 600 39.6 1.67 2100 0.009 0.011 0.006 0.000 0.105 0.126 0.087 0.000 0.179 0.159 0.211 0.885 1.179
6 / 1.5 200 600 45 1.67 2100 0.009 0.011 0.000 0.004 0.093 0.111 0.000 0.051 0.075 0.159 0.084 2.128 1.127
7 / 1.5 200 600 30.4 1.67 2100 0.009 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.137 0.164 0.000 0.000 0.098 0.159 0.100 1.616 1.021
8 / 1.5 200 600 37.2 1.67 2100 0.009 0.011 0.002 0.003 0.112 0.134 0.023 0.039 0.121 0.159 0.134 1.313 1.111
3 / 2.0 200 500 42.5 2.0 2100 0.011 0.011 0.002 0.000 0.120 0.120 0.020 0.000 0.100 0.137 0.111 1.374 1.115
4 / 2.0 200 500 38.3 2.0 2100 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.003 0.133 0.133 0.000 0.037 0.078 0.137 0.074 1.756 0.948
5 / 2.0 200 500 41.1 2.0 2100 0.011 0.011 0.006 0.000 0.124 0.124 0.084 0.000 0.163 0.137 0.229 0.841 1.408
6 / 2.0 200 500 37.4 2.0 2100 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.004 0.136 0.136 0.000 0.061 0.108 0.137 0.079 1.270 0.737
7 / 2.0 200 500 46.8 2.0 2100 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.109 0.109 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.137 0.060 2.183 0.961

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008 / 921

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

 Table 1. 共Continued.兲
共␭n兲 pro.
␭n 共␭n兲Exp.

bw h f c⬘ L Eq. Eq. Eq. Eq.

Researcher Specimen mm mm MPa a / h mm ␳b ␳t ␳v ␳h ␾b ␾t ␾v ␾h Exp. 共6兲 共7兲 共6兲 共7兲
Ashour CDB1 120 625 30 1.09 1340 0.007 0.009 0.008 0.010 0.109 0.147 0.100 0.118 0.240 0.220 0.309 0.917 1.289
共1997兲 CDB2 120 625 39.2 1.09 1340 0.007 0.009 0.004 0.005 0.084 0.113 0.040 0.045 0.158 0.220 0.175 1.388 1.106
CDB3 120 625 25 1.09 1340 0.007 0.009 0.000 0.005 0.131 0.177 0.000 0.071 0.149 0.176 0.158 1.177 1.057
CDB4 120 625 31.5 1.09 1340 0.007 0.009 0.004 0.000 0.104 0.140 0.049 0.000 0.183 0.176 0.198 0.958 1.077
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CDB5 120 625 32 1.09 1340 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.050 0.050 0.048 0.055 0.168 0.176 0.170 1.053 1.017
CDB6 120 425 26.5 1.6 1340 0.008 0.008 0.005 0.003 0.159 0.159 0.060 0.035 0.179 0.197 0.246 1.095 1.369
CDB7 120 425 30.9 1.6 1340 0.008 0.008 0.002 0.001 0.136 0.136 0.027 0.015 0.138 0.157 0.157 1.137 1.138
CDB8 120 425 29.4 1.6 1340 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.082 0.082 0.028 0.016 0.126 0.140 0.136 1.114 1.082
Subedi 1CB1 50 400 56.5 0.63 500 0.011 0.011 0.006 0.006 0.095 0.095 0.034 0.034 0.292 0.336 0.263 1.149 0.900
共1998兲 1CB2 50 400 56.5 1.25 1000 0.011 0.011 0.006 0.006 0.095 0.095 0.034 0.034 0.159 0.216 0.158 1.355 0.989
2CB4 75 600 44.7 1.4 1680 0.015 0.005 0.011 0.011 0.169 0.062 0.102 0.102 0.209 0.133 0.249 0.638 1.190
Asin 1.0/ 1 / 1 150 1000 37.1 1.1 2300 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.050 0.068 0.075 0.000 0.144 0.140 0.163 0.976 1.135
共1999兲 1.0/ 1 / 2 150 1000 30.2 1.1 2300 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.062 0.083 0.066 0.000 0.167 0.140 0.165 0.841 0.989
1.0/ 1 / 3 150 1000 30.4 1.1 2300 0.003 0.004 0.002 0.000 0.061 0.082 0.041 0.000 0.130 0.140 0.136 1.075 1.042
1.0/ 2 / 1 150 1000 28.2 1.1 2300 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.000 0.088 0.065 0.099 0.000 0.216 0.140 0.226 0.649 1.046
1.0/ 2 / 2 150 1000 34.3 1.1 2300 0.004 0.003 0.004 0.000 0.072 0.054 0.058 0.000 0.145 0.140 0.160 0.970 1.106
1.0/ 2 / 3 150 1000 36.8 1.1 2300 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.000 0.067 0.050 0.034 0.000 0.124 0.140 0.126 1.129 1.014
1.5/ 1 / 1 150 600 34.9 1.83 2300 0.007 0.009 0.005 0.000 0.122 0.152 0.080 0.000 0.189 0.136 0.216 0.720 1.143
1.5/ 1 / 2 150 600 33.3 1.83 2300 0.007 0.009 0.004 0.000 0.128 0.159 0.060 0.000 0.173 0.136 0.200 0.787 1.155
1.5/ 1 / 3 150 600 32.6 1.83 2300 0.007 0.009 0.002 0.000 0.130 0.163 0.038 0.000 0.136 0.136 0.163 1.005 1.197
1.5/ 2 / 1 150 600 33.2 1.83 2300 0.010 0.008 0.005 0.000 0.166 0.133 0.084 0.000 0.194 0.136 0.236 0.702 1.214
1.5/ 2 / 2 150 600 33.2 1.83 2300 0.010 0.008 0.004 0.000 0.166 0.133 0.060 0.000 0.179 0.136 0.217 0.762 1.211
1.5/ 2 / 3 150 600 34.4 1.83 2300 0.010 0.008 0.002 0.000 0.160 0.128 0.036 0.000 0.124 0.136 0.163 1.100 1.315
Note: bw = section width; h = overall section depth; f c⬘ = cylinder compressive strength; a / h = shear span-to-overall depth ratio; a = shear span; L = length of
one span; ␳b = longitudinal bottom reinforcement ratio 共=As / bwd兲; As = total area of longitudinal bottom reinforcement; d = effective section depth;
␳t = longitudinal top reinforcement ratio 共=As⬘ / bwd兲; As⬘ = total area of longitudinal top reinforcement; ␳v = vertical shear reinforcement ratio 共=Av / bwsv兲; Av
and sv = area and spacing of vertical shear reinforcement, respectively; ␳h = horizontal shear reinforcement ratio 共=Ah / bwsh兲; Ah and sh = area and spacing
of horizontal shear reinforcement, respectively; ␾b = longitudinal bottom reinforcement index 共=␳b f y / f c⬘兲; ␾t = longitudinal top reinforcement index
共=␳t f y / f c⬘兲; ␾v = vertical shear reinforcement index 共=␳v f y / f c⬘兲; ␾h = horizontal shear reinforcement index 共=␳h f y / f c⬘兲; f y = yield strength of steel
reinforcement; ␭n = normalized load capacity 共=Pn / bwhf c⬘兲; and Pn = ultimate load capacity on one span, as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. In addition, Eqs. 共6兲 and
共7兲 indicate predictions obtained from strut-and-tie model based on ACI 318-05 and mechanism analysis, respectively.

placed in two orthogonal directions in each face, is suggested by corresponds to the crushing failure mode of concrete struts join-
ACI 318-05 as follows: ing load and reaction points. However, other failure modes such
as yielding or anchorage failure of longitudinal reinforcement,
A
兺 bwsisi sin ␥i 艌 0.003 共5兲
splitting failure, and bearing failure at load or support plates may
occur but failure owing to crushing of concrete struts is the most
common as occurring in test specimens in the database.
where Asi, and si = total area and spacing of the ith layer of rein-
forcement crossing a strut, respectively; and ␥i = angle between
the ith layer of reinforcement and a strut. The value of the effec-
tiveness factor drops to 0.6 if the minimum shear reinforcement Mechanism Analysis
defined in Eq. 共5兲 above is not provided. This implies that the
arrangement of shear reinforcement satisfying Eq. 共5兲 allows the The experimental investigations 共Rogowsky et al. 1986; Ashour
load capacity of deep beams predicted by the strut-and-tie model 1997; Asin 1999; Yang et al. 2007a,b兲 showed that the two-span
as given by Eq. 共1兲 to be increased by 25%. From Eqs. 共1兲, 共3兲, reinforced concrete deep beam was usually separated into two
and 共4兲, the normalized load capacity ␭n = Pn / 共bwhf ⬘c 兲, of continu- rigid blocks, one of which rotated about an instantaneous center
ous deep beams predicted by the strut-and-tie model based on 共I.C.兲 and the other was fixed over the intermediate and one end
ACI 318-05 can be written as follows: supports as shown in Fig. 2共a兲. Ashour and Morley 共1996兲 pre-
sented an upper bound analysis for the mechanism of failure
␯e sin ␪ described above. By equating the total internal energy dissipated
␭n = 关2共wt⬘ + 2c⬘兲cos ␪ + 共0.5共l p兲I + 共l p兲E + 共l p兲 p兲sin ␪兴
2h in concrete along the hyperbolic yield line and in steel reinforce-
ment crossing the yield line to the external work done by the
共6兲
vertical applied load Pn, the normalized load capacity ␭n can be
The normalized load capacity ␭n estimated from Eq. 共6兲 above developed in the following form 共Ashour and Morley 1996兲:

922 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. Schematic strut-and-tie model for continuous deep beams based on ACI 318-05

␭n = 冋
1 ␯e
a 2
r共1 − sin ␣兲
1
sin ␤
+ 兺
n

i=1
共␾s兲i共rs兲i cos共␣s兲i 册 共7兲
forcement index for each individual bar i crossing the yield line;
共Ast兲i and 共f y兲i = area and yield strength of the reinforcing bar i
crossing the yield line, respectively; n = number of reinforcing
where r = distance between the midpoint of the chord of the yield bars crossing the yield line; 共rs兲i = distance between the reinforc-
line and the instantaneous center; ␻ = rotational displacement of ing bar i and the instantaneous center; and 共␣s兲i = angle between
rigid block I; ␣ = angle between the relative displacement ␦ at the the relative displacement 共␦s兲i of the reinforcing bar i about I.C.
midpoint of the chord and yield line chord; ␤ = angle between the and the reinforcing bar i crossing the yield line as shown in
yield line and longitudinal axis; 共␾s兲i = 共Ast兲i共f y兲i / 共bwhf ⬘c 兲⫽rein- Fig. 2共b兲. In developing the above equation, concrete is regarded

Fig. 2. Idealized failure mechanism for two-span continuous deep beams

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008 / 923

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Comparison of predicted and measured normalized load capacities

as a rigid perfectly plastic material with an effective compressive factor Kc can be written as 共1 + sin ␣兲 / 共1 − sin ␣兲. This indicates
strength f *c 共=ve f ⬘c 兲 and obeying the modified Coulomb failure cri- that the influence of the transverse tensile strain on the effective-
teria with zero tension cut off 共Nielsen 1984兲. ness factor can be determined by the angle ␣. The factor ␰ pro-
The effectiveness factor of concrete proposed by Vecchio and posed by Bažant and Kim 共1984兲, which is a function of the
Collins 共1993兲 is adopted in the present study. It has also been effective depth d and the maximum size of aggregate da is to
modified to consider the influence of size effect as follows: reflect the influence of the size effect, which is significant in deep
beams as pointed out by Wang et al. 共1993兲.
␰
␯e = The load capacity of continuous deep beams is implicitly ex-
1.0 + KcK f pressed as a function of the position of the instantaneous center

冉 冊
共Xic , Y ic兲 as given in Eq. 共7兲. As the vertical displacement at the
␧1 0.8
end support of rigid block I is prevented, the I.C. can be located
Kc = 0.35 − − 0.28 艌 1.0
␧3 along the end support. The process of tuning the vertical coordi-
nate 共Y ic兲 to get the minimum value of the load capacity is
K f = 0.1825冑 f ⬘c 艌 1.0 achieved by reliable numerical optimization procedures provided
in Matlab software.
1

冑
␰= 共8兲
d
1+ Comparison and Discussion
25da
where ␧1 and ␧3 = principal tensile and compressive strains in the Comparison of Normalized Ultimate Load Capacity
yield line, respectively. As the principal strains ␧1,3 are
␦共sin ␣ ⫾ 1兲 / 2⌬ in the yield line having discontinuous width Table 1 and Fig. 3 show the comparison of predicted and mea-
of ⌬ from the plasticity theory 共Nielsen 1984兲, −␧1 / ␧3 in the sured normalized load capacities of continuous deep beams in the

924 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

 Table 2. Comparison of 关共Pn兲Pro.兴 / 关共Pn兲Exp.兴 by Different Methods
Strut-and-tie model by ACI 318-05 Mechanism analysis
W/O W/V W/H W/VH Total W/O W/V W/H W/VH Total
Mean 1.36 0.91 1.23 1.13 1.12 1.06 1.1 1.0 1.07 1.07
Standard deviation 0.40 0.21 0.48 0.26 0.37 0.14 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.14
Coefficient of variation 0.29 0.23 0.39 0.23 0.33 0.13 0.11 0.16 0.13 0.13
Note: W/O, W/V, W/H, and W/VH refer to continuous deep beams without, with only vertical, with only horizontal, and with orthogonal shear
reinforcement, respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

data base. Different statistical parameters to measure the accuracy ent parameters used to produce Figs. 5–9 of the parametric
of both techniques, such as mean, standard deviation, and coeffi- analysis as explained below. All reinforcement is assumed to be
cient of variation, are presented in Table 2 for different web rein- smeared with perfect bond to concrete.
forcement arrangements. The average and standard deviation of
the ratio between the theoretical and experimental load capacities
Concrete Strength
of continuous deep beams are 1.12 and 0.37, respectively, for
strut-and-tie model of ACI 318-05, and 1.07 and 0.14, respec- Fig. 5 shows the effect of compressive strength of concrete f ⬘c
tively, for the mechanism analysis. A smaller coefficient of varia- on the load capacity Pn of continuous deep beams without shear
tion 共COV兲 is achieved in case of the mechanism analysis than reinforcement. The load capacity increases with the increase of
the strut-and-tie model of ACI 318-05 as given in Table 2. The f ⬘c as predicted by both strut-and-tie model and mechanism analy-
strut-and-tie model highly overestimates the load capacity of con- sis. However, the rate of load capacity increase predicted by the
tinuous deep beams without shear reinforcement; the mean, stan- strut-and-tie model is significantly higher than that obtained from
dard deviation, and coefficient of variation of the ratio between the mechanism analysis. As a result, the strut-and-tie model
the strut-and-tie prediction and measured load capacity are 1.36, commonly overestimates the load capacity of continuous deep
0.4, and 0.29, respectively. In addition, the predictions obtained beams with higher concrete strength as shown in Fig. 5. On the
from the strut-and-tie model are unconservative for continuous other hand, predictions obtained from the mechanism analysis
deep beams with only horizontal shear reinforcement, even shows better agreement with test results, regardless of variation
though the effectiveness factor of 0.6 is used regardless of the of shear span-to-overall depth ratio and compressive strength of
amount of horizontal shear reinforcement arranged. Compared concrete.
with the strut-and-tie model, predictions obtained from Eq. 共7兲 of
the mechanism analysis are in better agreement with experimental
results. Longitudinal Bottom Reinforcement
The influence of longitudinal bottom reinforcement index
Parametric Analysis ␾b = 共As f y / bwdf ⬘c 兲, on the normalized load capacity ␭n of continu-
ous deep beams without shear reinforcement for two different
The influence of various parameters on the load capacity of con-
shear span-to-overall depth ratios is shown in Fig. 6. The normal-
tinuous deep beams is studied using the strut-and-tie model and
ized load capacity, as predicted by the strut-and-tie model of ACI
mechanism analysis of the plasticity theory and also experimental
318-05, is independent of ␾b, as failure is assumed to occur due
results. In the parametric study, the geometrical dimensions of
to crushing of concrete struts rather than steel yielding. However,
beams are normalized with the overall section depth h as shown
in Fig. 4. Ideally, one parameter should be changed, while others the prediction obtained from the mechanism analysis linearly in-
are kept constant. However, as test results in the database are creases with the increase of ␾b up to a certain limit beyond which
collected from different sources, it would not be possible to ␭n remains constant as the instantaneous center lies at the level of
strictly achieve this and average values of concrete and steel re- longitudinal bottom reinforcement when it becomes strong
inforcement properties are used. Table 3 gives the range of differ- enough not to yield. For a small amount of main longitudinal
bottom reinforcement, the strut-and-tie model overestimates the
load capacity of continuous deep beams. However, for a larger
amount of longitudinal bottom reinforcement and shear span-to-
overall depth ratio of 1.8, the predictions obtained from both
methods are almost the same. The mean and standard deviation of
the ratio between the predicted and measured load capacities
共Pn兲Pro. / 共Pn兲Exp., of continuous deep beams without shear rein-
forcement are 1.36 and 0.4, respectively, for strut-and-tie model
of ACI 318-05, and 1.06 and 0.14, respectively, for mechanism
analysis, as given in Table 2.

Shear Span-to-Overall Depth Ratio

Fig. 7 presents the influence of shear span-to-overall depth ratio
a / h on the normalized load capacity. Different horizontal and
vertical shear reinforcement combinations were investigated
Fig. 4. Continuous deep beam used in the parametric study in producing Fig. 7, namely, ␾v = 共Av f y / bwsv f ⬘c 兲 = 0.057 and

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008 / 925

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

 Ashour 共1997兲, Yang et al. 共2007a,b兲
Asin 共1999兲, Yang et al. 共2007a,b兲

Asin 共1999兲, Yang et al. 共2007a,b兲

Rogowsky et al. 共1986兲

Rogowsky et al. 共1986兲

Rogowsky et al. 共1986兲

Rogowsky et al. 共1986兲

Rogowsky et al. 共1984兲

Yang et al. 共2007a,b兲

Yang et al. 共2007a,b兲

Source of beams
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

—
0.021–0.09

0,0.057
共0.052兲
None

None
None

None

None

None
␾h

—
Fig. 5. Influence of f ⬘c on Pn 共for beams without shear reinforcement兲
0.02–0.099

␾h = 共Ah f y / bwsh f ⬘c 兲 = 0.0; ␾v = 0.0 and ␾h = 0.057; and ␾v = 0.0 and

0, 0.057
共0.057兲
None

None
None

None

None

None
␾h = 0.0, where Ah and sh = area and spacing of horizontal shear
␾v

reinforcement, respectively; and Av and sv = area and spacing of

vertical shear reinforcement, respectively. The normalized load
capacity commonly decreases with the increase of a / h ratio as
0.054–0.19

0.054–0.19
0.068–0.27

0.05–0.169

0.07–0.176
0.05–0.19

predicted by both methods and experimental results. Lower de-

共0.126兲

共0.126兲

共0.124兲

共0.121兲

共0.124兲
0.12

0.12

0.12

0.12
␾t

creasing rate is predicted by the mechanism analysis in beams

with only vertical shear reinforcement than in beams without
shear reinforcement or with only horizontal shear reinforcement.
Contrary to test results, the predicted normalized load capacity by
0.054–0.191

0.068–0.27

the strut-and-tie method is almost the same for a / h less than 0.6.
0.05–0.287

0.05–0.287

0.052–0.17
共0.108兲

共0.118兲

共0.116兲
共0.11兲

For mechanism analysis, horizontal shear reinforcement is more

0.1

0.1

0.1
␾b

effective than vertical shear reinforcement when a / h ratio is

below 0.6; that is similar to test results.
0.55, 1.0

0.55, 1.5

0.55, 1.5
0.7, 1.8
0.5–1.0

0.5–2.0

0.5–2.0

0.5–2.0

Vertical Shear Reinforcement

a/h

The normalized load capacity of continuous deep beams predicted

by the mechanism analysis gradually increases with the increase
of vertical shear reinforcement index ␾v, as shown in Fig. 8,
30.4–68.2

14.5–68.2

14.5–65.1

25.0–68.2

which is practically similar to that in simple deep beams 共Smith

MPa
Table 3. Range of Different Variables Used to Produce the Parametric Study

45

45

45

45
f c⬘

and Vantsiotis 1982兲. The load capacity increasing rate is higher

for higher shear span-to-overall depth ratios. The predictions of
strut-and-tie model are independent of ␾v, since truss action
Note: Average values of ␾b, ␾t, ␾v, and ␾h are given in parentheses.

of shear reinforcement is not considered, and unconservative

400–1000

400–1000

500–1000
400–100

500–100
mm

600

600

600

600

600

for beams having a small vertical shear reinforcement index

h

共␾v ⬍ 0.03兲 as depicted in Fig. 8. The predictions obtained from

160–200

160–200

120–200

160–200

120–200
mm

160

160

160

160

160
bw

Experimental values

Experimental values

Experimental values

Experimental values

Experimental values
Theoretical values

Theoretical values

Theoretical values

Theoretical values

Theoretical values
Effect of each variable

a / h 共Fig. 7兲

␾v 共Fig. 8兲
␾b 共Fig. 6兲

␾h 共Fig. 9兲
f c⬘ 共Fig. 5兲

Fig. 6. Influence of ␾b on ␭n 共for beams without shear reinforcement兲

926 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Influence of ␾h on ␭n
Fig. 7. Influence of a / h on ␭n

a / h = 0.55. The average and standard deviation of the ratio be-

the mechanism analysis are in better agreement with test results tween the predicted and measured load capacities of continuous
than the strut-and-tie model. The average and standard deviation deep beams with only horizontal shear reinforcement are 1.23 and
of the ratio between the predicted and experimental load capaci- 0.48, respectively, for the strut-and-tie model of ACI 318-05, and
ties of continuous deep beams with only vertical shear reinforce- 1.0 and 0.16, respectively, for the mechanism analysis, as given in
ment are 0.91 and 0.21, respectively, for strut-and-tie model of Table 2.
ACI 318-05, and 1.11 and 0.12, respectively, for the mechanism
analysis, as given in Table 2.
Conclusions
Horizontal Shear Reinforcement
The influence of various parameters on the load capacity of two-
The influence of horizontal shear reinforcement on the load ca- span continuous deep beams is reviewed from existing test results
pacity of continuous deep beams is shown in Fig. 9. The effect of and compared with predictions obtained from the strut-and-tie
horizontal shear reinforcement on the normalized load capacity is model based on ACI 318-05 and mechanism analysis. The follow-
less pronounced for shear span-to-overall depth ratio of 1.5 than ing conclusions may be drawn:
that of 0.55, as pointed out by Ashour 共1997兲 and Rogowsky et al. 1. The load capacity of continuous deep beams gradually in-
共1986兲. Similar to the effect of vertical shear reinforcement, the creases with the increase of concrete strength and amount
predictions obtained from the strut-and-tie model are independent of longitudinal bottom reinforcement. The prediction ob-
of the amount of horizontal web reinforcement and are unconser- tained from mechanism analysis also linearly increases
vative for most beams having shear span to overall depth ratio of with the increase of longitudinal bottom reinforcement
1.5. However, the predictions obtained from the mechanism index up to a certain value beyond which the load capacity
analysis increase with the increase of ␾h. The increasing rate is remains constant. However, the predictions obtained from
lower for beams having a / h = 1.5 than that for beams having the strut-and-tie model would not change with the increase
of main longitudinal bottom reinforcement, as failure is
assumed to occur due to concrete crushing. As a result, the
predictions obtained from the strut-and-tie model are un-
conservative in case of low amount of longitudinal bottom
reinforcement.
2. The normalized load capacity commonly decreases with
the increase of shear span-to-overall depth ratio.
3. The effect of horizontal shear reinforcement on the nor-
malized load capacity is not clearly shown in beams
having shear span-to-overall depth ratio more than 1.0.
However, for beams having shear span-to-overall depth
ratio not exceeding 0.6, the normalized load capacity in-
creases with the increase of horizontal shear reinforcement
index.
4. For the strut-and-tie model proposed by ACI 318-05, the
average and standard deviation of the ratio between the
predicted and measured load capacities of 75 continuous
deep beams are 1.12 and 0.37, respectively. The predic-
tions become more unconservative for a lower amount of
Fig. 8. Influence of ␾v on ␭n longitudinal bottom and shear reinforcement.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008 / 927

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

 5. The mechanism analysis based on upper-bound theorem of ␥ ⫽ angle between shear reinforcement and the axis of
the plasticity theory reasonably reflects the influence of concrete strut;
various parameters on the load capacity of continuous ␦ ⫽ relative displacement vector across a yield line;
deep beams and shows better agreement with experimental ␦s ⫽ relative displacement vector of reinforcement crossing
results than the strut-and-tie model. a yield line;
␧1,3 ⫽ principal stress in a yield line;
␩ ⫽ ratio of reaction in end support to the applied load;
␪ ⫽ angle between concrete strut and longitudinal axis of
Acknowledgments beam;
␭n ⫽ normalized ultimate load capacity;
This work was supported by the Korea Research Foundation
␯e ⫽ effectiveness factor;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Grant No. KRF-2004-041-D00746 and the Regional Research

␰ ⫽ size effect factor;
Centers Program 共Bio-housing Research Institute兲, granted by the
␳b ⫽ longitudinal bottom reinforcement ratio 共As / bwd兲;
Korean Ministry of Education and Human Resources Develop-
␳h ⫽ horizontal shear reinforcement ratio 共Ah / bwsh兲;
ment. The writers wish to express their gratitude for financial
␳t ⫽ longitudinal top reinforcement ratio 共As⬘ / bwd兲;
support.
␳v ⫽ vertical shear reinforcement ratio 共Av / bwsv兲;
␾b ⫽ longitudinal bottom reinforcement index 共␳b f y / f ⬘c 兲;
␾h ⫽ horizontal shear reinforcement index 共␳h f y / f ⬘c 兲;
Notation ␾t ⫽ longitudinal top reinforcement index 共␳t f y / f ⬘c 兲; and
␾v ⫽ vertical shear reinforcement index 共␳v f y / f ⬘c 兲;
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ah ⫽ area of horizontal shear reinforcement;
As ⫽ area of longitudinal bottom reinforcement; References
As⬘ ⫽ area of longitudinal top reinforcement;
Av ⫽ area of vertical shear reinforcement; American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials
a ⫽ shear span; 共AASHTO兲. 共1998兲. “LRFD bridge specifications and commentary.”
bw ⫽ width of beam section; Washington D.C.
c ⫽ distance from the soffit of beam to the center of American Concrete Institute 共ACI兲. 共2005兲. “Building code requirements
longitudinal bottom reinforcement; for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318–05, Detroit.
c⬘ ⫽ distance between the top surface of beam and the Ashour, A. F. 共1997兲. “Tests of reinforced concrete continuous deep
center of longitudinal top reinforcement; beams.” ACI Struct. J., 94共1兲, 3–12.
Ashour, A. F., and Morley, C. T. 共1996兲. “Effectiveness factor of concrete
d ⫽ effective depth of beam section;
in continuous deep beams.” J. Struct. Eng., 122共2兲, 169–178.
da ⫽ maximum size of aggregate; Ashour, A. F., and Rishi, G. 共2000兲. “Tests of reinforced concrete
FE ⫽ load capacity of concrete strut in exterior shear span; continuous deep beams with web openings.” ACI Struct. J., 97共3兲,
FI ⫽ load capacity of concrete strut in interior shear span; 418–426.
f ⬘c ⫽ concrete compressive strength; Asin, M. 共1999兲. The behaviour of reinforced concrete continuous deep
f y ⫽ yield strength of reinforcement; beams, Delft University Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
h ⫽ overall depth of beam section; Bažant, Z. P., and Kim, J. K. 共1984兲. “Size effect in shear failure of
jd ⫽ distance between the center of top and bottom nodes; longitudinally reinforced beams.” ACI J., 81共5兲, 456–468.
L ⫽ beam span; British Standards Institution 共BSI兲. 共2004兲. “The European standard EN
l p ⫽ width of loading or support plate; 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures.” EC 2,
n ⫽ number of reinforcing bars crossing the yield line; U.K.
Pn ⫽ ultimate load capacity; Canadian Standards Association 共CSA兲. 共1994兲. “Design of concrete
r ⫽ distance between the midpoint of the chord of the structures for buildings.” CAN3-A23.3-M94, Rexdale, Canada.
Comité Euro-International du Beton 共CEB-FIP兲. 共1993兲. “CEB-FIP
yield line and the instantaneous center;
model code 1990 for concrete structures.” CEB-FIP 90, Bulletin
rs ⫽ distance between the reinforcing bar crossing a yield
d’Information No. 213-214, Lausanne, Switzerland.
line and the instantaneous center; Marti, P. 共1985兲. “Basic tools of reinforced concrete beam design.” ACI
sh ⫽ spacing of horizontal shear reinforcement; J., 82共1兲, 46–56.
sv ⫽ spacing of vertical shear reinforcement; Mau, S. T., and Hsu, T. T. C. 共1989兲. “A formula for the shear strength of
Wc ⫽ internal energy dissipated in concrete; deep beams.” ACI Struct. J., 86共5兲, 516–523.
WE ⫽ external work done by applied load; Nielsen, M. P. 共1984兲. Limit analysis and concrete plasticity, Prentice-
WI ⫽ total internal energy dissipated in yield line; Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Ws ⫽ internal energy dissipated in reinforcement; Rogowsky, D. M., MacGregor, J. G., and Ong, S. Y. 共1986兲. “Tests of
ws ⫽ width of concrete strut; reinforced concrete deep beams.” ACI J., 83共4兲, 614–623.
wt ⫽ height of the plate anchored to longitudinal Siao, W. B. 共1993兲. “Strut-and-tie mode for shear behavior in deep beams
reinforcement; and pile caps failing in diagonal splitting.” ACI Struct. J., 90共4兲,
wt⬘ ⫽ smaller of wt and twice of the concrete cover; 356–363.
Smith, K. N., and Vantsiotis, A. S. 共1982兲. “Shear strength of deep
␣ ⫽ angle between the relative displacement at the
beams.” ACI J., 79共3兲, 201–213.
midpoints of the chord and yield line; Subedi, N. K. 共1998兲. “Reinforced concrete two-spcn continuous deep
␣s ⫽ angle between the relative displacement of the beams.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., Struct. Build., 128, 12–25.
reinforcement about I.C. and the reinforcement crossing Tan, K. H., Kong, F. K., Teng, S., and Weng, L. W. 共1997兲. “Effect of
a yield line; web reinforcement on high-strength concrete deep beams.” ACI
␤ ⫽ angle between yield line and longitudinal axis; Struct. J., 94共5兲, 572–582.

928 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929

 Tan, K. H., and Lu, H. Y. 共1999兲. “Shear behavior of large reinforced reinforced concrete deep beams.” J. Struct. Eng., 119共8兲, 2294–2312.
concrete deep beams and code comparisons.” ACI Struct. J., 96共5兲, Yang, K. H., Chung, H. S., and Ashour, A. F. 共2007a兲. “Influence of
836–845. section depth on the structural behavior of reinforced concrete con-
Tjhin, T. N., and Kuchma, D. A. 共2002兲. “Example 1b: Alternative design tinuous deep beams.” Mag. Concrete Res., 59共8兲, 575–586.
for the non-slender beam 共deep beam兲.” Examples for the design of Yang, K. H., Chung, H. S., and Ashour, A. F. 共2007b兲. “Influence of shear
structural concrete with strut-and-tie models, K. H. Reineck, ed., ACI reinforcement on reinforced concrete continuous deep beams.” ACI
Int. SP-208, 81–90. Struct. J., 104共4兲, 420–429.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. 共1993兲. “Compression response of Yang, K. H., Eun, H. C., Chung, H. S., and Lee, E. T. 共2003兲. “Shear
cracked reinforced concrete.” J. Struct. Eng., 119共12兲, 3590–3610. characteristics of high-strength concrete deep beams without shear
Wang, W., Jiang, D. H., and Hsu, C. T. T. 共1993兲. “Shear strength of reinforcement.” Eng. Struct., 25共8兲, 1343–1352.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UEM - Universidade Estadual De Maringa on 09/20/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2008 / 929

J. Struct. Eng., 2008, 134(6): 919-929