Deep Beams

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/299604529
Characterization and Shear Strength Prediction of reinforced Concrete Deep

Beams- A Review
Article in International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · March 2016
CITATIONS READS
2 1,095
2 authors:
Kwadwo Adinkrah-Appiah Mark Adom-Asamoah

Sunyani Technial Unversty (STU) Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology
17 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS 66 PUBLICATIONS 348 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The use of steel rods milled from scrap metal in concrete View project
Concrete Materials View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Adom-Asamoah on 04 April 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2013): 6.14 | Impact Factor (2013): 4.438
Characterization and Shear Strength Prediction of

Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams – A Review
2
Kwadwo Adinkrah-Appiah1, Mark Adom-Asamoah
1
Sunyani Polytechnic, Department of Civil Engineering, Sunyani, Ghana
2
Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST), Department of Civil Engineering, Kumasi, Ghana
Abstract: Reinforced concrete deep beams are structural elements that transfer heavy gravity loads predominantly through shearing
action to their supports. A significant feature of deep beams is their high shear strength. This is attributed to the internal tied-arch
mechanism which conveys the load directly to the supports through concrete compressive struts. Different definitions have been
proposed for RC deep beams by various researchers and codes of practice that differ in concept.Also, various shear strength prediction
models have been developed by several researchers and codes for the estimation of the shear strength of deep beams through analytical
and extensive test programs. However, there seems to be no agreement on which definition adequately classifies what a deep beam is and
which model produces best results close to experimental values, the shear strength of this class of beams. The study compared the
definitions and evaluated the shear capacity models of deep beams per different code provisions based on data from 210 deep beams
obtained from the literature. It was found that the ACI-318 (2008) code definition concept gives the most realistic characterization of a
deep beam, whilst its shear strength model, based on the strut-and-tie model approach, provides the best prediction for the shear strength
of a deep beam.
Keywords: Deep beams, Shear strength models, Strut-and-tie model, Average margin of safety, Tied-arch mechanism
1. Introduction load and bottom reactions produce large compressive

stresses perpendicular to the beam axis. These stresses act
Reinforced concrete (RC) beams generally exhibit low together with shear stresses to form a complex stress field in
resistance to shear when the depth of the beam increases [1]; the web. Because of the small horizontal distance between
[2]; [3]. This phenomenon is known as the size effect[4]; [3]. top and bottom load points (i.e. small a/d ratios), the
However, it is also confirmed through experimentation that outcome of such stresses result in a tied-arch action distinct
irrespective of the depth of RC beam, when the shear span- in deep beams. Because of these complex stresses and
to-effective depth ratio (a/d) reduces, the shear strength of strains, the study of deep beams has become a special area of
the beam increases [5]. This phenomenon leads to the interest.
classification of reinforced concrete beams into slender and
deep beams [6].Areas in RC beams wherethe shear span is Despite the complexities caused by the design of deep
less than twice the member depth are found tobe dominated beams, the use of reinforced concrete deep beams has turned
by tied-arch action rather than beam-action and are, hence, out to be more common in recent years.They often find their
defined as D-regions (disturbed or discontinuity regions)[7]; application in the design of transfer girders in high-rise
[8]. Deep beams are characterized by the presence of one or buildings as well as foundation walls, bins, pile caps, water
more D-regions [9]. tanks, folded plate roof structures, floor diaphragms, shear
walls and brackets or corbels[2]. Over the years, a variety of
The design of RC deep beams,therefore, does not adhere to models have been proposed by many researchers and wide-
the elementary theory of bending based on the Euler- ranging test campaigns have been undertaken on deep
Bernoulli hypothesis, since the theory disregards the effects beams. Also, different definitions have been proposed to
of shear deformation and stress concentration, and assumes define RC deep beams by different researchers and codes of
that sections normal to the neutral axis before bending practice that differ in concept. However, there seems to be no
remain unchanged during and after bending. This implies agreement on which definition adequately classifies what a
that the transverse shear strain is zero, which in practice is deep beam is, and which model produces best results close to
not valid for deep beams. This assumption underestimates experimental values, the shear strength of this class of
deflections in deep beams, where shear deformation effects beams.The objective of the study was to compare the
are quite significant and hence under-estimate their shear definitions and the shear strength models forreinforced
capacity [1]. For instance, the shear capacity of a deep beam concrete deep beams given by different code provisions, and
may be as much as two to three times higher than that to suggest the most reliable code to appropriately define and
predicted using conventional shear models developed for predict the shear strength of deep beams subjected to
slender beams based on the Euler-Bernoulli hypothesis [2]. loading.
The elastic solutions on deep beams offer good description 2. Definition of a Deep Beam
of their behaviour before cracking. However, after the
development of a diagonal crack, significant redistribution of There are several definitions given by various writers and
strains and stresses occurs and, therefore, the shear capacity standardsfor deep beams. [10]defined deep beams as beams
of the beam must be predicted by nonlinear analysis. For a with huge depths in relation to spans. In [11] Clause 29, a
simply supported deep beam with a point load on top, the top simply supported beam is classified as deep when the ratio of
Volume 5 Issue 3, March 2016
Paper ID: NOV161438 www.ijsr.net 1789
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
its effective span L to overall depth D is less than 2.
Continuous beams are regarded as deep beams when the
ratio L/D is less than 2.5. The effective span is the centre-to-
centre distance between the supports or 1.15 times the clear
span, whichever is less. The Canadian code [12] states that
the flexural member with a clear span (ln) to overall depth (h)
ratio less than 2 must be designated as deep beam and the
non-linear distribution of strains should be taken into
account.
According to [13], RC deep beam can be defined as a Figure 1: Deep beam definition by the [7]based on geometry
member with clear span equal or less than four times the
overall member depth or regions of a beam loaded on one The ratio of the effective length to overall depth within 4
face with a concentrated load within twice the member depth based on geometry prescribed by the ACI definition implies
from the support, and supported on the opposite face so that that, irrespective of the loading condition, there are four
compression struts can form between the loads and supports. beam depths (h) that interconnect to form the length of the
The [7] defines deep beams in clause 11.7.1 as members with beam. This implies that if a central point load is placed on
effective length(Ln)not greater than four times the overall the beam, there will be two D-regions on each side of the
member depth or regions of beams loaded with concentrated load defined by two beam depths between the load and the
loads within twice the member depth from the support face, supports (ie. av = 2h) as shown in Figure 2. This further
with the beam loaded on one face and supported on the implies that, a shear span of length 2h exists between the
opposite face so that compression struts can form between load and each support which defines the two D-regions. On
the loads and the supports. the other hand, if two symmetrical point loads are placed in
the middle quarter of the beam as shown in Figure 3, then
[14]classifies deep beams as transfer beams and defines them there exists two D-regions to each side of the loads defined
as horizontal members that havea/d less than 2, which carry by shear spans of less than two beam depths but more than
heavy gravity loads,predominantly through shear, by one beam depth (ie. h<av< 2h). Also, if the two symmetrical
developing a diagonal crack. [6]define a deep beam as a point loads are located in the first quarter of the beam, then
directly loaded beam with a/d between 0.5 and 2.5. The there are two D-regions at each side of the loads defined by a
writers also define shallow or slender beams as beams with shear span of less than one beam depth (h) between the loads
a/d higher than 2.5, whilst beams with a/d less than 0.5 fall and the supports (ie. av< h) as shown in Figure 4. This
into the category of corbels and brackets. They further definition infers that no matter the type of loading on the
characterize deep beams as beams that may develop tied-arch beam, as geometrically defined by the ACI code, whether
behaviour after the formation of inclined cracking which uniformly distributed or point loads, D-regions occur on the
enables the beam obtain considerable reserve shear capacity. beam when the span is within four beam depths and hence it
On the other hand, shallow beams are beams that may not can be classified as a deep beam based on geometry.
develop significant arching behaviour and generally fail
shortly after the formation of diagonal cracking unless shear
reinforcement is applied. According to the writers, beams
with a/d ratio lower than 0.5 fall under the category of
corbels and brackets, and may not even develop inclined or
diagonal cracking before they fail through a sliding or shear
friction type of mechanism. The writers consider deep beams
to be a transition between slender beams and corbels or
brackets.
From the above definitions, there are two main concepts for
defining deep beams: the [7] based definition and the[11]
based definition. The [7] based definition classifies a RC
beam as a deep beam based on two distinguishing Figure 2: D-Regions defined by the [7]with a central-point
parameters: geometry or loading condition. In terms of load
geometry, the [7] definition classifies a horizontal structural
member as a deep beam when the ratio of its effective length For the other alternate ACI definition of a deep beam, the
(Le) to overall depth (h) is less than or equal to 4 (ie. L e ≤ emphasis is on the mode of loading irrespective of the length
4h), as shown in Figure 1. In terms of loading condition, the of the beam. The load should be a point load and the distance
ACI code classifies any beam as a deep beam when the between the load and at least one support reaction should be
entire beam or portions of it is loaded with a concentrated within twice the effective depth, which implies that the shear
load within twice the member depth. This can further be span should be at most twice the beam depth (ie. a v ≤ 2h).
explained by the presence of D-regions on the beam due to This further implies that at least there should be two D-
loading discontinuities irrespective of the beam’s effective regions on one end of a beam which inter-connect to
length to overall depth ratio [9].A D-region is a portion of a characterize it as a deep beam (Figure 5). This definition is
member within a distance of the depth of the beam (h) from a also valid since the presence of D-regions on a RC beam
force discontinuity or a geometric discontinuity[7].
www.ijsr.net
Paper ID: NOV161438 1790
produces non-linear strains, which is a major characteristic
of a deep beam.
Figure 6: Deep beamdefinition by the [11]
Figure 3: D-Regions defined by the [7]with two symmetrical

point loads in the middle quarter regions
Figure 7: D-Regions defined by the [11]with a central-point

load
Figure 4: D-Regions defined by the [7]with two symmetrical

point loads in the first quarter regions
Figure 8: D-Regions definedby the [11]with two

symmetrical point loads
The[11] based definition implies that, in terms of loading

condition, a deep beam consists of a v/h = 1 (or av/d < 1)
when the beam caries a central point load and av/h < 1 (or
av/d is far less than 1) when it carries two symmetrical point
Figure 5: D-Regions defined by the [7]based on loading loads. This definition is narrow since it excludes other
condition possibilities of beam geometry where D-regions can exist on
the beam such as when the beam span is made up of up to
On the other hand, the[11] based definition classifies a RC four beam depths, as prescribed by the [7] definition. Also,
beam as a deep beam only in terms of geometry. And even in experiments carried out by many researchers have proved
terms of geometry, the code classifies a RC beam as a deep that a/d of up to 2 on a loaded RC beam produces non-linear
beam when the ratio of its effective span to overall depth (h) strains in the beam due to the dominance of tied-arch action
is less than 2. Thus, even in terms of geometry, the ratio of which transfers the load directly from the point of loading to
effective span-to-overall depth of 2 implies that there are the support through concrete struts; causing the beam to
only two beam depths that interconnect to define the length behave as a deep beam with increased shear capacity
of the beam (Figure 6). Now, when such a beamcarries a [15];[16]; [5]; [17].
central point load, it will imply that there will be two D-
regions at each side of the load defined by half of a beam Similar to the [11] definition, the [18] considers beams of
depth or a shear span of one beam depth between the load clear span (lo) less than two times the effective depth as deep
and the supports (ie. av = h) as shown in Figure 7. On the beams. The [18] does not provide specific design
other hand, if the beam carries two symmetrical point loads, considerations for deep beams but only recommends that
then the D-regions will be defined by a distance less than specialist literature should be contacted. It however
half of a beam depth or shear spans of less than a beam recognizes the enhancement of the concrete shear strength v c
depth between the loads and the supports (ie. a v< h) as shown in beams with sections that are closer to the face of a support
in Figure 8. or a concentrated load than two times the effective depth, d
(Clause 3.4.5.8) and goes further to suggest a shear
enhancement capacity fromvc to 2dvc/av. In a similar way,
the [51]adopts an alternative approach by reducing the shear
force due to loading within 2d of the support by a factor
ofav/2d. This recognition of shear enhancement at sections
www.ijsr.net
closer to a support or a concentrated load in RC beams slender beams – beams with a/d≥ 2.0 [25]; [26]; [4], [27];
contradicts the definition of a deep beam loaded with a [28]; [29]. Some analytical modelshave been proposed for
central point load by the [18]. This is because a distance assessing the size-dependent shear strength of such beams.
twice the effective depth at both sides of a central point load [30]established that the critical strength of concrete beams
suggests that the total length of the beam cannot be less than decreases with increase in the beam depth, with a distinctive
four times the effective depth of the beam (4d) or four beam depth of 225 mm observed, above which the size effect
depths and not twice the effective depth as prescribed by the phenomenon becomes evident. [26] also found from a series
[18] definition. of tests that, the average shear stress to cause failure of the
largest beam was only about one-third of that which caused
3. Factors Affecting Shear Strength of Deep failure of the smallest beam. This implies that, the shear
Beams strength of RC beams could reduce to as low as one-third of
the strength of the beam with the lowest depth, as the beam
Several factors affect the shear strength of deep beams. Some depth increases, with all other parameters remaining
of the most important ones include shear span-to-depth ratio, constant.
compressive strength of concrete, flexural reinforcement,
vertical and horizontal shear reinforcement [19]. The
contribution of each factor on the shear capacity of deep
beams is discussed.
3.1 Shear Span-to depth Ratio (a/d)
The shear resistance of a deep beam fundamentally depends

on its a/d. Various experimental studies have proved that the
a/d is the overriding parameter that affects the shear
resistance of a deep beam, as the shear strength increases
with a decreasing a/d[20]; [19]; [21]; [22]; [23]; [14]. This is
because as the a/d ratio decreases, the load is transferred
directly by concrete struts, formed as a result of diagonal
cracks, to the supports. This mechanism is known as the tied-
arch or strut-and-tie action in deep beams [5]; [17]. In Figure 9: Variation of shear strength with a/d[24]
contrast to deep beams, slender beams are dominated by
beam-action or mechanism as a/d ratio increases above 2.5. [31]tested twenty one beam samples to investigate the shear
In Figure 9, the STM plot represents the tied-arch action in characteristics with different variable beam depths. It was
deep beams and predicts the strength of deep beams very found that an increase in beam depth results in more brittle
well when a/d ≤ 2.5. The conventional sectional method failure with wide diagonal cracks and high energy dissipation
rather predicts well the shear capacity of slender beams when rate related to size effect. Also, high strength concrete (HSC)
a/d> 2.5, compared to the experimental plot. deep beams have been found to exhibit more significant size
effect with brittle behavior at failure.[32]concluded that HSC
[8]tested 3 pairs of deep beams with a/d ratio of 0.94, 0.76 beams exhibit strong size effect in shear than normal strength
and 0.64 under two point loading. The results portrayed that concrete, which can be attributed to the fact that, failure of
as the a/d ratio decreased, the average values of the first HSC normally occurs through the aggregate particles,
crack load increased from 60.0, 69.5 to 78.5 KN reducing the aggregate interlock component of the shear
respectively. Similarly, the ultimate failure loads increased strength of the concrete.
from 140.5, 144.4 to 149.1 KN respectively, implying that as
a/d decreases in deep beams, their shear strength increases. Many fracture mechanics models have been suggested in
order to describe the failure of concrete [33]; [34];[35]. Each
3.2 Beam Span-to-Depth Ratio (ln/d) of these models establishes some material fracture
characteristics regardless of the structural geometry and size.
[20]tested 12 deep beams having different span to depth Concrete structures demonstrate size effect which has been
ratios and concluded that, similar to a/dratio,ln/d ratio also explained as a result of the randomness of material strength.
has a significant influence on the shear strength of a deep In large structures it is more likely to meet a material point of
beam, with shear strength being inversely proportional to ln/d lesser strength. Nonetheless, size effect in concrete structures
ratio. This is because as the ln/d ratio increases, a longer arch must be explained by a non-linear form of fracture
is formed to carry the load to the support and at the same mechanics that considers the localization of damage into a
time, the mid span deflection increases which creates more fracture process zone (FPZ) of a non-negligible size. [36]was
flexural cracking than shear failure[22]. the first to develop a size effect law using infinite series, and
restraining its applicability to the size range of 1:32. Thus,
3.3Beam Depth (Size Effect) the phenomenon of size effect has strongly been confirmed
in beams and has been considered by some shear predictive
The shear strength of a reinforced concrete beam decreases models [18].
with increase in the depth of the beam. This phenomenon is
prominently known as the size effect. The occurrence of size
effect has been reaffirmed through several research efforts on
www.ijsr.net
3.4 Beam Web Reinforcement in normal weight concrete deep beams, and increased with
the reduction of the maximum aggregate size.
Vertical web reinforcement is one of the major factors that
significantly affect the shear strength of deep beams, aside 3.6Compressive Strength of Concrete (𝒇′𝒄 )
the a/d ratio. The fundamental purpose of vertical web
reinforcement is to give confinement to the concrete which The shear strength of a deep beam is a function of the
helps to improve the shear capacity of deep beams. Also, compressive strength, 𝑓𝑐′ . [44]showedthata 45% increase in
vertical reinforcement improves the shear strength of deep 𝑓𝑐′ is accompanied by a 10% shear increase. This increase is
beams more effectively than horizontal shear reinforcement, not proportional since in the case of high strength or
and in the case of shear failure vertical reinforcement makes lightweight concrete, the fractured aggregates at ultimate
the beam fail in a more ductile manner [14]; [37]. Many load will generate less friction compared to normal strength
studies have revealed that the shear strength of a deep beam concrete. Similarly, [19] study on deep beams showed that
increases linearly with increase in the vertical shear fc’ has a great influence on the shear capacity. Their results
reinforcement [38]; [25]; [39]; [19];[40]; [22]; [41]. showed that the shear capacity is higher in the case of deep
However, [19] found that the contribution of the vertical beams with high fc’ and low web reinforcement, compared to
shear reinforcement diminishes as the a/ddecreases (a/d< 1). a beam with low fc’ and high web reinforcement. However,
A similar study by [23] confirmed that the higher the a/dratio the tests conducted were limited to only normal strength
(a/d>0.75), the higher the contribution of the vertical web concrete (fc’ = 16 to 23 MPa). On the other hand, [14]has
reinforcement. On the contrary, [14] has found that the shear found that the compressive strength of concrete (fc’ = 24 to
strength increase with vertical shear reinforcement 37 MPa) has only a little influence on the shear capacity of
isobserved up to a reinforcement ratio of 1.25%, above deep beams.
which there is no effect. This implies that the contribution of
vertical shear reinforcement to the shear strength of a deep 3.7Longitudinal Reinforcement
beam is not infinite, but has a limit.
[21]tested 64 deep beams and found that with the increase of
Some studies have revealed that the horizontal shear longitudinal reinforcement, the shear strength of a deep beam
reinforcement has no effect on the shear strength of deep increased significantly. Similar studies by [23] and [14]
beams [39]. However, other studies found that there exists a found that the longitudinal reinforcement has linear
little increase in shear strength with the increase of correlation with the shear strength up to a certain limit for
horizontal shear reinforcement. This is specifically so when deep beams without shear reinforcement and beyond that it
there is low vertical shear reinforcement. On the contrary, in has no effect. Longitudinal reinforcement increases the shear
the presence of more vertical reinforcement, an increase in capacity of a deep beam by reducing the crack width,
the horizontal shear reinforcement ratio will not have any improving the interface shear transfer mechanism and
appreciable contribution on the shear strength of the beam increasing the dowel action [14]). [37]has shown that the
[19]. average shear strength increases linearly as the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio increases up to 1.5% and beyond that it
3.5Type of Concrete reaches a plateau.
[42]conducted a study to compare the shear behavior and [45]also showed that the failure of deep beams with
performance of deep beams made with a moderately high- longitudinal reinforcement less than that suggested by
strength self-compacting concrete (SCC) of strength 50 MPa 3 𝑓𝑐 ′
[46](𝐴𝑠𝑡 .𝑚𝑖𝑛 = 𝑏𝑤 𝑑) is flexural and is accompanied by
and a corresponding normal weight concrete (NWC). Two 𝑓𝑦
sets of beams were tested for both SCC and NWC, one set large deflections without any inclined cracks. The writers
with congested (closely spaced) shear reinforcement and the further observed that as the flexural tensile steel
other with non-congested (widely spaced) shear reinforcement increases, the failure due to cracking of the
reinforcement. The writers concluded that the SCC deep concrete at nodal zones becomes evident.
beams with relatively non-congested web reinforcement
showed a slightly higher loadcarrying capacity in terms of 4. Shear Strength of RC Deep Beams
diagonal shear cracking and ultimate loads compared to the
NWC samples. Research has proved thatdeep beams transfer shear through
either a tied-arch mechanism or truss (beam) mechanism
[43]studied the aggregate interlock contribution to the shear (Figure 10). The two most influentialparameters affecting the
strength of lightweight concrete, with different aggregate type of load transfer mechanism are the a/d and the amount
sizes in continuous deep beams. They found that even though of transverse reinforcement. It has been confirmed thatas
the pattern of the failure plane of the samples tested was a/ddecreases, a higher fraction of load is transferred through
scarcely influenced by the maximum aggregate size and type tied-archaction, which imparts higher shear strength in the
of concrete, the diagonal crack size along the failure plane beam as a result of direct transfer of the load from the
reduced with the increase of the maximum aggregate size loading point to the support through compressive struts (Fig.
and was much lower in normal weight concrete than in 10a). Conversely, beams with higher a/dratiostransfer a
lightweight concrete deep beams at the same loading levels. larger portion of loads through beam or truss action (Figure
It was also established that the gradual reduction in stiffness 10b)[47];[48].
after the occurrence of a diagonal crack was more
pronounced in deep beams made of lightweight concrete than
www.ijsr.net
Similarly, higher amounts of transverse reinforcement lead to type of load transfer mechanism at failure will produce more
a larger fraction of the load to be transferred bytruss action, realistic results.
although at very low a/d ratios, the effect of transverse
reinforcement diminishes [23]; [19]. On the other hand,a Seven different models were assembled for analysisin the
certain minimum amount of web reinforcement (verticaland study as outlined in Table 1 to find the most realistic ones for
horizontal) is required to avoid splitting of diagonal struts the prediction of the shear strength of RC deep beams. The
that form between loads and supports of deep beams which performance of each model was assessed, by comparing the
give them enhanced shear capacity [5]. Average Margin of Safety (AMS) as well as their
coefficients of variation (CV), to find out their predictive
powers relative to the experimental results obtained from the
data base in the literature of deep beams. The shear equations
endorsedby the following codes of practice were assessed:
the Strut-and-Tie model (STM) proposed by the American
Concrete Institute [7];Indian Standard,[11]; [18]; [46]; [51];
[52] and [53].
Among the shear models considered, the STM is the only

method that predicts the shear strength of deep beams by
recognizing the load transfer mechanism through
consideration of the strength of the concrete struts that are
Figure 10: Load transfer mechanisms in deep beams formed during failure of deep beams. The rest of the models
rather depend on combination of some of the individual
Failure of deep beams is generally through crushing of component parameters of the beam such as shear span-to-
concrete in either reduced region of compression zone at the depth (𝑎 𝑑 ), concrete strength (𝑓𝑐′ ), beam span-to-depth
tip of inclined cracks, which is known as shear compression 𝑙𝑛 𝑑 , beam size (d) and amount of flexural reinforcement
failure, or by fracture of concrete along the crack referred to (𝜌𝑡 ), to predict the shear strength of the beam without
as diagonal splitting failure [49]. In deep beams with shear recourse to the load transfer mechanism.
span-to-depth ratio of less than 2.5, there is reserved energy
in the post-cracking region, which results in less brittle 6. Results and Discussions
failure [50].
A total of 120 reinforced concrete deep beams were gathered
The failure of deep beams manifest in four modes identified from the literature, with 116 of them without shear
as diagonal splitting (shear) failure, shear-compression reinforcement whilst 94 had shear reinforcement (Table 2
failure, shear-flexure failure and flexure. The diagonal- and 3). Table 4 depicts the results of the predictions of the
splitting failure, characterized as shear failure, is brittle, various models compared to experimental results of deep
sudden and hence treacherous. A critical diagonal crack, beams without shear reinforcement; whilst Table 5 covers
which joins the loading point at the top and support point at the results of deep beams with shear reinforcement. The
bottom of the beam, develops through which failure occurs. highest average margin of safety (AMS) value means the
In the shear-compression failuremode, after the inclined most conservative model; the least standard deviation (STD)
crack appears, the concrete portion between the load point suggests a significant improvement in the prediction
and the support experiences high compression and finally uniformity whilst the lowest Coefficient of Variation (CV)
fails. This failure mode is equally a brittle mode of failure. implies that a particular data set has the lowest variation in
The shear-flexure failure mode is a combination of shear and the accuracy, hence the greater uniformity in prediction [54].
flexure. Flexural cracks form first followed by the partly
diagonal cracks. This is ductile mode of failure in which the For the results presented, the [7] STM model generated an
beam deflects at the centre and no explosive sound is heard AMS that was most economical and safe for the deep beams
at the time of failure [14]. without reinforcement. It produced an AMS of 1.1 compared
with the [51], [18] and [11], which produced AMS valuesof
5. Models for Shear Strength Prediction in 1.9, 4.4 and 4.5 respectively. Thus, in terms of accuracy and
safety, the [7] STM model proved superior to the rest of the
Deep Beams
models whichcan be described as overly conservative since
their AMS values are far higher to 1. The [7] STM also
Several predictive models have been suggested by various
generated the lowest CV of 0.36 compared to 0.38, 0.41 and
researchers and many codes of practice have validated some
0.42 produced for each of the other three models namely;
of these models for design of RC deep beams. Generally,
[11], [18] and [51]respectively. This suggests that in terms of
since deep beams are characterized by small a/d ratios,
prediction uniformity, the [7] STM proves superior among
failure usually occurs by shear compression or diagonal
these set of models as a result of its lowest CV. On the other
splitting in which the concrete between the support and the
hand, the [6], [53] and [52] design equations with AMS of
loading point fail in compression after a diagonal crack.
0.8, 0.4 and 0.4 respectively, over-estimate the shear strength
Thus, the failure of deep beams is characterized by tied-arch
of deep beams without shear reinforcement and are not
action instead of beam action, which makes deep beams
reliable for design in terms of safety. This trend of AMS
exhibit higher shear strengths. It is therefore anticipated that,
results is similar to values obtained in a study carried out by
predictive models which account for the mode of failure or
[14]. Again, the [7] STM gives the best
www.ijsr.net
Table 1: Shear Strength Predictive Models
No. Author Model Remarks
1. ACI-318 𝐹𝑛𝑠 = 𝑓𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑐𝑒 Fns = nominal compressive strength of concrete strut,
STM 𝑓𝑐𝑒 = 0.85𝛽𝑠 𝑓𝑐′ Fnt = nominal strength of a tie,
(2008) 𝐹𝑛𝑡 = 𝐴𝑡𝑠 𝑓𝑦 Fnn = nominal compressive strength of a nodal zone,
𝐹𝑛𝑛 = 𝑓𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝑛𝑧 Acs = the smallest effective cross-sectional area of a strut,
𝑓𝑐𝑒 = 0.85𝛽𝑛 𝑓𝑐′ Ats = area of non-prestressed reinforcement,
𝐹 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃 Anz = area of the face of the nodal zone,
𝑉𝑢 = 𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝑛𝑠 fce = effective compressive strength, βs, βn = strength
𝐹𝑛𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜃
reduction factors for struts and nodes respectively
2. IS456: 0.85 0.85𝑓𝑐𝑘 where 𝛽 = 0.8𝑓𝑐𝑘 / 6.89𝑃𝑡 or 1, whichever is greater
2000 𝜏𝑐 = 1 + 5𝛽 − 1
6𝛽
3. BS8110 0.79 100𝐴𝑠 1 3
400 1 4 𝑓𝑐𝑢 1 3 𝑑 Where,
(1997) 𝑣𝑐 = 2 400 𝑑 1 4
≥ 1; 𝜌𝑡 = 100𝐴𝑠 𝑏𝑣 𝑑 % ≤ 3.
𝛾𝑚 𝑏𝑣 𝑑 𝑑 25 𝑎𝑣
𝑓𝑐𝑢 ≤ 40 MPa.
4. ACI -318 𝑉 = 𝑉𝑐 + 𝑉𝑠 , where, 𝑉𝑐 fy ≤ 410 MPa,
(2005) Av = the area of vertical web reinforcement within a
𝑀𝑢 𝑉𝑢 𝑑
= 3.5 − 2.5 0.16 𝑓𝑐′ + 17𝜌𝑤 𝑏𝑤 𝑑 distance Sv in inch2,
𝑉𝑢 𝑑 𝑀𝑢 Ah = the area of horizontal web reinforcement within a
distance Sh in inch2
𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑉𝑢 𝑑 𝑀𝑢 ≤ 1; 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑉𝑐 ≤ 0.29 𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏𝑤 𝑑
𝑙
𝑛 𝑙𝑛
𝐴𝑣 1 + 𝑑 𝐴ℎ 11 − 𝑑 𝑣𝑣 − 𝑣𝑐
𝑉𝑠 = + = 𝑏
𝑆𝑣 12 𝑆ℎ 12 𝑓𝑦
5. EC2 – 200 where 𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 𝑓𝑐𝑢 − 1.6.

2004 𝑣𝑛 = 0.18 1 + (100𝜌𝑤 𝑓𝑐𝑘 )0.33
𝑑
6. AIK (1998) 𝑙𝑛 where 2 ≤ 𝑙𝑛 𝑑 ≤ 5.
𝑉𝑛 = 0.18 10 + 𝑓𝑐𝑘 𝑏𝑤 𝑑
𝑑
7. Zsutty 2.5 𝑑 0.333 where
𝑎
< 2.5.
(1968) 𝑣𝑢 = 𝑎 2.3 𝑓𝑐′ 𝜌 𝑑
𝑎
𝑑
Table 2: Data on deep beams without shear reinforcement

Properties No. b (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d fc'(MPa) ρw (%)
Database Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max.
Salamy et al (2005) 12 240 720 475 1505 400.0 1400.0 0.5 1.5 23.0 37.0 2.0 2.1
Ramadan et al. (2011) 18 250 250 400 700 360.0 660.0 1.0 2.0 37.5 37.5 0.7 1.8
Londhe (2011) 19 100 100 150 400 125.0 375.0 1.1 2.0 24.4 36.7 0.3 2.4
Mathey&Watsein (1963) 16 203 203 457 457 403.0 403.0 1.3 1.3 22.0 27.0 0.8 3.1
Moody et al (1954) 12 178 178 610 610 533.0 533.0 1.1 1.1 18.0 25.0 1.7 4.3
Lehwalter, (1988) 4 250 250 200 1000 160.0 930.0 1.3 1.3 14.0 19.0 1.7 2.1
Leonhardt&Walter (1964) 1 190 190 320 320 270.0 270.0 1.1 1.1 21.0 21.0 1.5 1.5
Placas (1969) 3 152 152 305 305 272.0 272.0 2.0 2.0 34.0 34.0 0.8 2.2
Vollum& Tay (2001) 10 100 100 200 200 180.0 180.0 1.1 1.2 25.0 44.0 1.3 2.2
Reyes de Ortiz (1993) 5 150 150 400 400 326.0 363.0 1.1 1.4 32.0 51.0 1.8 2.1
Smith&Vantsiotis (1982) 3 102 102 356 356 305.0 305.0 1.2 1.8 20.0 22.0 1.9 2.6
Chen et al (2001) 4 140 140 500 1750 444.0 1559.0 1.5 1.6 39.0 44.0 2.6 2.6
Tan et al (1997) 1 102 102 500 500 443.0 443.0 1.4 1.4 78.0 78.0 1.0 1.0
Clarke (1951) 5 203 203 457 457 390.0 390.0 1.3 1.7 24.0 25.0 1.0 1.0
de Cossio&Siess (1960) 1 152 152 457 457 390.0 390.0 1.4 1.4 21.0 21.0 1.3 1.3
Sagaseta (2008) 2 135 135 500 500 438.0 438.0 1.1 1.1 68.0 80.0 3.3 3.3
Total Tests 116
Volume 4 Issue 4, April 2015

www.ijsr.net
Table 3: Data on deep beams with Shear reinforcement
Properties No b (mm) h (mm) d (mm) a/d fc' (MPa) 𝜌𝑡 (%) 𝜌𝑣 (%)
Database Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
Ahmad et al (2011) 6 150 150 375 525 318.8 467.5 0.6 0.9 34.0 34.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.1
Salamy et al (2005) 8 240 840 475 1505 400.0 1400.0 0.5 1.5 23.5 37.8 2.0 2.1 0.4 0.8
Brena& Roy (2009) 12 152 155 356 635 303.0 581.0 1.0 2.0 27.0 35.4 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.0
Londhe (2010) 9 100 100 400 400 375.0 375.0 1.1 1.1 32.1 32.2 0.6 2.4 0.5 2.3
Rao& Prasad (2010) 12 150 150 300 1200 252.0 1105.0 0.8 0.8 29.2 32.0 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.2
Lehwalter, (1988) 1 250 250 600 600 460.0 460.0 1.3 1.3 17.0 17.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5
Tan et al., (1995) 1 110 110 500 500 463.0 463.0 1.3 1.3 51.0 51.0 1.9 1.9 0.4 0.4
Regan (1971) 6 152 152 305 305 254.0 272.0 1.1 1.7 17.0 44.0 1.9 2.4 0.3 0.5
Tan et al., (1997) 2 110 110 500 500 433.0 433.0 1.4 1.4 35.0 35.0 3.2 3.2 0.4 0.5
Vollum& Tay (2001) 2 100 100 200 200 180.0 180.0 1.1 1.1 34.0 51.0 2.6 2.9 0.6 1.2
Clarke (1951) 27 152 203 381 457 314.0 390.0 1.3 1.7 14.0 78.0 2.4 3.1 0.2 1.1
Kong&Rangan (1998) 2 250 250 350 350 292.0 292.0 1.1 1.6 89.0 89.0 3.2 3.2 0.1 0.8
Sagaseta (2008) 6 135 135 500 500 438.0 438.0 1.1 1.1 68.0 80.0 3.2 3.2 0.2 0.5
Total Tests 94
Table 4: Average Margin of Safety for predicting the shear capacity of RC Deep beams without Shear Reinforcement
No. Model No. of Beams used for Average Margin of Standard Deviation Coeff. of
Evaluation Safety (AMS) (STDEV) Variation (CV)
1. ACI 318-08 (STM) 116 1.1 0.4 0.36
2. IS:456 (2000) 116 4.5 1.7 0.38
3. Zsutty (1968) 116 0.4 0.2 0.50
4. BS 8110, 1997 116 4.4 1.8 0.41
5. ACI 318-05 116 0.8 0.4 0.50
6. EC2-04 116 1.9 0.8 0.42
7. AIK-98 116 0.4 0.2 0.50
Table 5: Average Margin of Safety for predicting the shear capacity of RC Deep beamswith Shear Reinforcement
No. Model No. of Beams used for Average Margin of Standard Deviation Coeff. of Variation
Evaluation Safety (AMS) (STDEV) (CV)
1. ACI 318-08 (STM) 94 1.3 0.5 0.38
2. IS:456 (2000) 94 6.4 2.5 0.39
3. Zsutty (1968) 94 0.5 0.2 0.40
4. BS 8110, 1997 94 6.0 2.5 0.41
5. ACI 318-05 94 0.6 0.5 0.83
6. EC2-04 94 2.9 1.3 0.45
7. AIK-98 94 0.6 0.3 0.50
prediction for the deep beams with shear reinforcement in The high accuracy and uniformity of the predictions of the
terms of accuracy, economy and safety (Table 5). With the shear strength of deep beams, with and without shear
lowest average margin of safety of 1.3, the [7] STM model reinforcement, given by the [7] STM provision could be
has proved to give closer average predictions to the attributed to the fact that, unlike the others, the model
experimental average compared to the [51], [18] and [11] measures the actual strength of the compressive struts
which generated AMS of 2.9, 6.0 and 6.4 respectively. These formed by the internal tied-arch mechanism which conveys
other models can be said to be overly conservativesince they the load directly to the supports at failure. The
produced very high AMS in excess of 1. conservativeness of the three code models, namely; [51],
[18] and [11], for the prediction of both beams with and
Also, in terms of shear strength prediction uniformity, the [7] without shear reinforcement can be attributed to the fact that
STM continued to produce the lowest CV of 0.38, compared they represent equations developed for slender beams which
with [11], [18] and [51] which recorded CV values of 0.39, have been modified with a shear enhancement factor of
0.41 and 0.45 respectively for the beams with shear 2d/a.This is applicable whenan applied point load is within
reinforcement (Table 5). This shows that in terms of two effective depths from the face of the support of the
prediction uniformity, the [7] STM is more reliable than the beam, as proffered by these codes. Thus, the effectiveness of
rest of the models for the beams with shear reinforcement. the [7] STM shear strength provision over the other models
is well established.
The [46], [52] and [53] design models again over-estimated
the shear strength of deep beams with shear reinforcement, 7. Conclusions and Recommendations
since they presented AMS of 0.6, 0.6 and 0.5
respectivelywhich are below unity. This implies that Definition of a deep beam, as captured by different codes of
predicted strength values are far greater than the actual practice and standards, were discussed to find the most
strength obtained from experiments which connotes danger realistic definition for the characterization of deep beams.
to design. Also, comparative study amongst seven models for
predicting the shear resistance of deep beams was carried out
www.ijsr.net
in the study to find the predictive efficiency of each model. [7] ACI-318, (2008). Building Code Requirements for
The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis: Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary.
 Deep beams are normally defined on two bases: The [7] American Concrete Institute.
concept and the [11] concept. The [7] concept definition is [8] Ahmad, S. H. S. Rafeeqi F.A. and Fareed F. (2011).
based on two parameters: geometrical consideration and Shear Strength of Normal and Light Weight Reinforced
loading condition, whereas the [11] concept definition only Concrete Deep Beams without Web Reinforcement.
accounts for geometry. Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering and
 The [7] concept definition of a deep beam accounts for all Applied Sciences (JETEAS) 2 (6): 967-971.
plausible scenarios where D-regions occur on the beam. [9] Shuraim, A. B. (2012). Behavior and shear design
The presence of D-regions on a beam is the major provisions of reinforced concrete D-region beams.
characteristic for the classification of a deep beam, as it Journal of King Saud University – Engineering
creates non-linear strains in the beam which is the most Sciences, (2013) Vol. 25, pp. 65–74.
critical behaviour of deep [10] Kong F. K. (2011). Reinforced Concrete Deep Beam‟,
 beams. This suggests that the [7] concept definition is the Van No strand Reinhold, New York.
most reliable definition of deep beams and hence, must be [11] IS-456 (2000). ― Indian standard code of practice for
adopted to characterize deep beams. plain and reinforced concrete for general
 Shear strength of a deep beam is affected by factors such buildingconstruction‖, Bureau of Indian Standards,
as shear span-to-depth ratio, concrete compressive New Delhi, India.
strength, longitudinal reinforcement, beam web [12] CSA Committee A23.3 (2004). ― Design of Concrete
reinforcement, beam depth, beam span-to-depth ratio and Structures: Structures (Design)—A National Standard
type of concrete. However, shear span-to-depth ratio is the of Canada.‖ Canadian Standards Association.
most significant factor that affects the shear strength of a [13] Seo, S.-Y. Yoon S.-J. and Lee W.-J. (2004). Structural
deep beam followed by the vertical shear reinforcement. behavior of R/C deep beam with headed longitudinal
 The [7] strut-and-tie model (STM) has proved to be the reinforcements. 13th World Conference on earthquake
most economical and safe model for the prediction of engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1-6,
shear strength of deep beams, with or without shear 2004. Paper no. 58.
reinforcement, in the study. This is because it produced the [14] Londhe, R. S. (2011). "Shear strength analysis and
lowest estimate of the Average margin of safety just above prediction of reinforced concrete transfer beams in
1 and the lowest Co-efficient of Variation, and hence gives high-rise buildings." Structural Engineering Mechanics,
predictions with the highest uniformity. This suggests that 37(1), 39-59.
the [7] strut-and-tie model is the most effective model for [15] Ley, T.M., Riding, K.A., Widianto, Bae, S.J. and
the prediction of the shear strength of RC deep beams and Breen, J.E. (2007). ― Experimental verification of strut-
hence, must be employed in their design. and-tie model design method‖, ACI Struct. J., 104(6),
 The other equations of [46],[52] and [53] proved to over- 749-755.
estimate the shear capacity of deep beams which could be [16] Zhang N. and Tan K. H. (2007). Size effect in RC deep
harmful to the design of deep beams. beams: experimentalinvestigation and STM
verification. Engineering Structures29(12): 3241–3254.
[17] Sagaseta, J. and Vollum, R. L. (2008). Strut-and-tie
References modelling of short span beams. Proceedings of fib
International Symposium 2008, Tailor made concrete
[1] Ghugal, Y. M. and Dahake A.G. (2012). Flexural
structures, Amsterdam, 19-22, ISBN-13: 978-0-415-
analysis of deep beam subjected to parabolic load using
47535-8.
refined shear deformation theory. Applied and
[18] BS 8110 (1997), ― Structural use of concrete-part 1:
Computational Mechanics 6 (2012) 163–172.
code of practice for design and construction‖, British
[2] Niranjan, B.R. and Patil, S. S. (2012). Analysis of R.C
Standard Institution, Milton Keynes, London.
Deep Beam by Finite Element Method. International
[19] Smith, K. H. and Vantsiotis, A. S., (1982), ― Shear
Journal of Modern Engineering Research (IJMER).
strength of deep beams,‖ ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings,
Vol. 2, Issue. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2012, pp-4664-4667. ISSN:
79(3): 201- 213.
2249-6645.
[20] Manuel, R. F., Slight, B. W., and Suter, G. T. (1971).
[3] Rao G. A. and Sundaresan, R. (2012). Evaluation of
"Deep beam behavior affected by length and shear span
size effect on shear strength of reinforced concrete deep
vibrations." ACI Structural Journal, 68(12), 954-958.
beams using refined strut-and-tie model. Sadhana Vol.
[21] Mau, S. T. and Hsu, T. T. C. (1989). Formula for shear
37, Part 1, February 2012, pp. 89–105. Indian Academy
strength of deep beams, ACI Structural Journal, Vol.86,
of Sciences.
No. 5, 1989. pp.516-523.
[4] Tan, K. H. and Cheng, G. H. (2006). ― Size effect on
[22] Tan, K. H. Kong, F. K. Teng, S. and L. Guan (1995).
shear strength of deep beams: Investigation with strut-
―High Strength Concrete Deep Beams with Effective
and-tie model‖, J. Struct. Eng., 132(5), 673-685.
Span and Shear Span Variations,‖ ACI Structural
[5] Breña, S. F. and Roy, N. C. (2009). Evaluation of Load
Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp. 395-405.
Transfer and Strut Strength of Deep Beams with Short
[23] Ashour, A. F., Alvarez, L. F., and Toropov, V. V.
Longitudinal Bar Anchorages. ACI Structural Journal.
(2003). "Empirical modeling of shear strength of RC
Technical paper. Title no. 106-S63.
deep beams by genetic programming." Computers and
[6] Rogowsky, D. M., MacGregor, J. G. &Ong, S. Y.
Structures, 81(5), 331-338.Bazant Z.P. and Oh, B.H.
(1983). Tests of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams.
(1984); Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Mat
University of Alberta, Edmonton. Report number: 109.
and Strs, 16(93):155-177.

Paper ID: NOV161438
www.ijsr.net 1797

[24] Collins, M. P. and Mitchell, D. (1991). Prestressed [42] Choi Y. W. Lee H. K. Chu S. B. Cheong S. H. and
Concrete Structures. New Jersey, Prentice Hall. Jung W. Y. (2012). Shear Behavior and Performance of
[25] Kani G. N. J. (1967). Basic Facts Concerning Shear Deep Beams Made with Self-Compacting Concrete.
Failure. Journal of ACI, 1966, pp. 675–692. International Journal of Concrete Structures and
[26] Shioya, T. S., (1989). Shear Properties of Large Materials, Vol.6, No.2, pp.65–78, June 2012.
Reinforced Concrete Member, Special Report of [43] Yang K-H and Ashour A. F. (2010). Aggregate
Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation, No. 25, interlock in lightweight concrete continuous deep
February 1989, 213 pp. beams. Journal of Engineering Structures, Vol. 33,
[27] Yang, K.H., Chung, S.H. and Ashour, A.F. (2007). pp.136-145
―Influence of section depth on the structural behaviour [44] El-Sayed, A.K., (2006) ― Concrete contribution to the
of reinforced concrete continuous deep beams‖, Mag. shear resistance of FRP-reinforced concretebeams‖
Concrete Res., 59(8), 575-586. PhD Thesis, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke,
[28] Tan, K. H., Cheng, G. H. and Zhang, N. (2008), Quebec, Canada. Eurocode EC2 (2004). European
―Experiment to mitigate size effect on deep beams‖, Committee for Standardization, EN1992-1-1:2004
Mag. Concrete Res., 60(10), 709-723. NO002 (2002), ― Design of concrete structures, Part 1:
[29] RaoG. A. and Sundaresan, R. (2012). Evaluation of size General rules and regulations for buildings‖, English
effect on shear strength of reinforcedconcrete deep Edition, British Standards Institution, London.
beams using refined strut-and-tie model. SadhanaVol. [45] Mohammadhassani M. Jumaat M. Z. Ashour, A. F. and
37, Part 1, February 2012, pp. 89–105.Indian Academy Jameel, M. (2011). Failure modes and serviceability of
of Sciences. high strength self-compacting concrete deep beams.
[30] Walsh, P.F. (1972). Fracture of plain concrete. The Journal of Engineering Failure Analysis, Vol. 18
Indian Concrete J. 46(11): 469–476. (2011), pp. 2272–2281.Mau, S.T. and Hsu, T.T.C.
[31] Yang, K. Chung, H. Lee, E. Eun, H. (2003). Shear (1987). Shear strength prediction for deep beams with
characteristics of high-strength concrete deep beams webreinforcement. Am. Concr. Inst. Struct. J. 84, 6:
without shear reinforcements. EnggStrs 25: 1343–1352. 513.
[32] Rao, G. A. and Kunal, K. (2007). Shear strength of RC [46] ACI 318-05; ACI Committee 318, Building code
deep beams. Eligehausen, University of Stuttgart, requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-2005)
70569 Stuttgart, Germany.Rao A. G. and Kunal, K. and commentary (318R-2005), American Concrete
(2007). Shear strength of RC deep beams. Indian Institute (ACI).
Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-600 036, In. [47] AppaRao G. and Kunal K. (2007). Shear strength of
[33] Hillerborg, A., Modeer, M., and Petersson, P.E., Reinforced Concrete deep beams. FraMOS-6, 17-22,
(1976). ―A nalysis of Crack Formation and Crack June, 2007, Catania, Italy, pp. 671-675.
Growth in Concrete by Means of Fracture Mechanics [48] Omeman, Z. Nehdi, M. and El-Chabib, H. (2008).
and Finite Elements,‖ Cement and Concrete Research, Experimental study on shear behavior of carbon-fiber-
6, 773–782. reinforced polymer reinforced concrete short beams
[34] Bazant, Z.P. and Oh, B.H. (1983). Crack band theory without web reinforcement. Canadian Journal of Civil
for fracture of concrete. Mat and Strs, 16(93):155-177. Engineering, 35(1), 1–10.
[35] Jenq, Y. and Shah, S.P. (1985). Two parameter fracture [49] Brown M. D. and Bayrak, O. (2006). Minimum
model for concrete. Jl. of EngMech 111(10): 1227- transverse reinforcement for bottle-shaped struts, ACI
1240. STRUCTURAL JOURNAL, Vol.103, No.6, 2006.
[36] Bazant Z.P. and Kim J.K, (1984): ― Size effect in shear pp.813-821.
failure of longitudinally reinforced beams‖. ACI J [50] Khaldoun, R. and Khaled, A. (2004). Minimum
1984; 81:456-68 transverse reinforcement in 65 MPa concrete beams.
[37] Shahnewaz M. (2013). Shear behavior of reinforced ACI StrJl 101(6):872-878.
concrete deep beams under static and dynamic loads. A [51] Eurocode 2, (2004). Design of Concrete Structures, Part
thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. 2004-1-1,
requirements for the degree of Master of Applied p. 230.
Science in the College of Graduate Studies (Civil [52] Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) Code (2000).
Engineering), the University of British Columbia Reinforced Concrete Design Code and Examples.
(Okanagan), May, 2013. Gimoondang. Seoul.R.O.K.
[38] Clark, A. P. (1951). "Diagonal tension in reinforced [53] Zsutty T, (1986): ― Beam Shear Strength Prediction by
concrete beams." American Concrete Institude Journal, Analysis of Existing Data‖. ACI Journal 65(11): 942-
23(2), 145-156. 951.
[39] Kong, F.; Robins, P. J.; and Cole D. F. (1970). ― Web [54] Afrifa R. O. (2013). Performance evaluation of shear
Reinforcement Effects on Deep Beams,‖ ACI Journal, strength of reinforced concrete beams made from
No. 67, December 1970, pp. 1010-1018. phylliteaggregates. A Thesis submitted to the
[40] Oh, J. K. and Shin, S. W. (2001), ― Shear strength of Department of Civil Engineering, KNUST, Kumasi, in
reinforced concrete deep beams‖, Struct. J., 98(2), 164- partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
173. Doctor of Philosophy. Department of Civil
[41] Quintero-Febres, C., Parra-Montesinos, G., and Wight, Engineering, College of Engineering.
J. K. (2006). "Strength of struts in deep, concrete
members designed using strut-and-tie method." ACI
Structural Journal, 103(4), 577-586.

Paper ID: NOV161438
www.ijsr.net 1798

View publication stats

Deep Beams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deep Beams

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deep Beams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Characterization and Shear Strength Prediction of reinforced Concrete Deep

Article in International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) · March 2016

Kwadwo Adinkrah-Appiah Mark Adom-Asamoah

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Concrete Materials View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Characterization and Shear Strength Prediction of

1. Introduction load and bottom reactions produce large compressive

Figure 6: Deep beamdefinition by the [11]

Figure 3: D-Regions defined by the [7]with two symmetrical

Figure 7: D-Regions defined by the [11]with a central-point

Figure 4: D-Regions defined by the [7]with two symmetrical

Figure 8: D-Regions definedby the [11]with two

The[11] based definition implies that, in terms of loading

3.1 Shear Span-to depth Ratio (a/d)

The shear resistance of a deep beam fundamentally depends

Among the shear models considered, the STM is the only

5. EC2 – 200 where 𝑓𝑐𝑘 = 𝑓𝑐𝑢 − 1.6.

Table 2: Data on deep beams without shear reinforcement

Volume 4 Issue 4, April 2015

Volume 5 Issue 3, March 2016

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

Volume 5 Issue 3, March 2016

Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY

You might also like