ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 94-S01

Tests of Reinforced Concrete Continuous Deep Beams

by Ashraf F. Ashour

Test results of eight reinforced concrete continuous deep beams are The current codes of practice for shear in reinforced
reported. The main parameters considered were shear span-to-depth ratio, concrete continuous deep beams are based entirely on tests
amount and type of web reinforcement, and amount of main longitudinal of simply supported deep beams. However, different codes
reinforcement. Vertical web reinforcement had more influence on shear
of practice use different span-to-depth ratio limits to define
capacity than horizontal web reinforcement. Failure is initiated by a major
diagonal crack in the intermediate shear span between the edges of the
continuous deep beams in different ways; the CEB-FIP5 and
load and intermediate support plates. Comparisons between test results CIRIA Guide 2 formulae6 (the two main design documents
and current codes of practice, namely the ACI Building Code (318-89) and for deep beams in Europe) apply to continuous deep beams
CIRIA Guide 2, show little agreement. of span-to-depth ratios less than 2.5, while the ACI Building
Code (318-89)7 suggests that continuous beams with clear
Keywords: continuous beams; cracking (fracturing); deep beams; deflec- span-to-depth ratios less than 5 may be treated as deep
tion; reinforced concrete; shear strength; standards; web reinforcement. beams. It was found that the shear strength obtained from the
ACI Building Code (318-83) formula overestimates the
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE measured shear capacity of one-half of the continuous deep
The current codes of practice for shear in reinforced beams tested by Rogowsky et al.2
concrete continuous deep beams are based entirely on tests of The present paper reports test results of eight two-span
simply supported deep beams because there are very few tests reinforced concrete deep beams. The shear span-to-depth
of continuous reinforced concrete deep beams. This paper ratio included two values. Three levels of horizontal and
presents test results of eight reinforced concrete continuous vertical web reinforcement have been chosen. Two main
deep beams. For the tested beams presented in this investiga- flexural reinforcement ratios were studied. Test results are
tion, the vertical web reinforcement had more influence on compared to the predictions of different codes of practice for
shear capacity than the horizontal web reinforcement reinforced concrete continuous deep beams, namely the ACI
(contrary to code predictions). The comparison between test Building Code (318-89) and CIRIA Guide 2.
results and current codes of practice (ACI Building Code
[318-89] and CIRIA Guide 2) shows little agreement.
TEST SPECIMENS
Two series of two-span reinforced concrete deep beams
INTRODUCTION were tested. The overall dimensions of each series are shown
Reinforced concrete continuous deep beams are fairly
in Fig. 1. All tested beams had the same length and width: the
common structural elements. They are used as load distribution
length L was 3000 mm (118 in.) and the width b was 120 mm
elements such as transfer girders, pile caps, tanks, folded plates,
(4.7 in.). The locations of center lines of loads and supports
and foundation walls, often receiving many small loads and
were the same for all test specimens. Only the beam depth h
transferring them to a small number of reaction points. There
was varied to obtain two different shear span-to-depth ratios:
have been extensive experimental investigations of simply
for Series I, the depth was 625 mm (24.6 in.) to give a clear
supported deep beams1-4 but very few tests of continuous rein-
shear span-to-depth ratio of 0.8, and for Series II the depth
forced concrete deep beams.2,4 Seventeen two-span reinforced
was 425 mm (16.7 in.) to give a clear shear span-to-depth
concrete deep beams have been tested by Rogowsky et al.,2 16
ratio of 1.18.
with either vertical or horizontal web reinforcement.
Continuous deep beams differ from either simply The details of reinforcement for each beam are shown in
supported deep beams or continuous shallow beams. In Fig. 2 and Table 1. The amount of vertical web reinforce-
continuous deep beams, the regions of high shear and high ment included three levels: none, a low amount, and a large
moment coincide and failure usually occurs in these regions. amount. The amount of horizontal web reinforcement
In simple deep beams, the region of high shear coincides studied was none, a low amount, and a large amount. The
with the region of low moment. Failure mechanisms for vertical web reinforcement was closed stirrups and the hori-
continuous deep beams are therefore significantly different
from failure mechanisms in simply supported beams. Deep ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 1, January-February 1997.
Received May 5, 1995, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright ©
beams develop a truss or tied arch action more marked than 1997, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless
in shallow beams where shear is transferred through a fairly permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including
author’s closure, if any, will be published in the November-December 1997 ACI Struc-
uniform diagonal compression field. tural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 1997.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1997 3

 were tested on the same day of the beam test and the prisms
Ashraf F. Ashour is a lecturer in the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering at the University of Bradford, UK. He received his PhD from Cambridge were tested soon after the beam test. Concrete properties are
University, U.K., where he was awarded the Cambridge Overseas Scholarship in given in Table 3. The cubes were tested in compression
1991. His research interests include constitutive modeling, finite element, shear, and according to BS 1881. The cube compressive strength fcu
plasticity of reinforced concrete structures.
shown in Table 3 is obtained from the average of compres-
sive strengths of the tested cubes: eight cubes for beams in
zontal web reinforcement was longitudinal bars in both sides of Series I and six cubes for beams in Series II. Two cylinders
the beam. The main longitudinal top and bottom reinforcement were tested in compression according to the ASTM standard.
was kept constant for each series except for the last beam The cylinder compressive strength f c′ given in Table 3 is the
(CDB5 and CDB8) in each series, where the amount of top and average compressive strength of two cylinders. The relation
bottom reinforcement was reduced. All longitudinal bottom between the cube compressive strength fcu and the cylinder
reinforcement extended the full length of the beams and through compressive strength fc′ has the form
the depth to provide sufficient anchorage.
f c′ ≅ 0.85f cu (1)
MATERIALS
The ingredients of the concrete were ordinary portland
cement, irregular gravel of 10-mm (0.4-in.) maximum size, One prism was tested under a four-point loading system to
and sand. The mix proportions by weight are given in Table 2. obtain the modulus of rupture ft and the other two with
All specimens were cast upright in the same wooden mold notches were tested under a three-point loading system to
and differed only in the overall depth that was changed by obtain the fracture energy Gf of concrete according to the
adjusting the bottom face to get two depths: 625 or 425 mm RILEM recommendation.8 Table 3 gives the modulus of
(24.6 or 16.7 in.). The following control specimens were rupture and fracture energy of concrete for different beams.
made during casting of each beam: eight 100 x 100 x 100- All longitudinal top and bottom reinforcement was 10 or
mm (4 x 4 x 4-in.) cubes for beams in Series I, six 100 x 100 12-mm (0.4 or 0.48-in.) diameter high-yield ribbed steel
x 100-mm (4 x 4 x 4-in.) cubes for beams in Series II, two bars. The web reinforcement was normal mild steel. Fig. 3
150 x 300-mm (6 x 12-in.) cylinders, and three 100 x 100 x shows the stress-strain curves for the different bar diameters
500-mm (4 x 4 x 20-in.) prisms. The cubes and cylinders (6, 8, 10, and 12 mm [0.24, 0.32, 0.4, and 0.48 in.]) used in

Fig. 1—Geometrical dimensions of test specimens (all dimensions in mm).

Table 1—Details of specimen reinforcement

Main longitudinal reinforcement Web reinforcement
Bottom Top Horizontal Vertical stirrup
Beam no. Total no. As fy*, kN Total no. As fy*, kN Total no. As fy*, kN Total no. As fy*, kN
CDB1 4φ12 mm 56.5 4φ12 mm + 2φ10 mm 56.5 8φ8 mm 18.6 29φ8 mm 18.6
CDB2 4φ12 mm 56.5 4φ12 mm + 2φ10 mm 56.5 4φ8 mm 18.6 15φ8 mm 18.6
CDB3 4φ12 mm 56.5 4φ12 mm + 2φ10 mm 56.5 4φ8 mm 18.6 — —
CDB4 4φ12 mm 56.5 4φ12 mm + 2φ10 mm 56.5 — — 15φ8 mm 18.6
CDB5 2φ12 mm 56.5 2φ12 mm 56.5 4φ8 mm 18.6 15φ8 mm 18.6
CDB6 2φ12 mm +2φ10 mm 56.5 2φ12 mm + 2φ10 mm 56.5 4φ6 mm 9.80 29φ6 mm 9.83
CDB7 2φ12 mm +2φ10 mm 56.5 2φ12 mm + 2φ10 mm 56.5 2φ6 mm 9.80 15φ6 mm 9.83
CDB8 2φ12 mm 56.5 2φ12 mm 56.5 2φ6 mm 9.80 15φ6 mm 9.83
*
As fy = yield force for single reinforcing bar.

4 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1997

Table 2—Mix proportions of concrete ingredients
Ingredients Weight, kg/m3 Weight/cement content
Water 205 0.6
Cement 340 1.0
Sand 785 2.31
Gravel 1000 2.94

Table 3—Concrete properties

Beam no. fcu , N/mm2 fc′, N/mm2 ft , N/mm2 Gf , N/m
CDB1 36.6 30.0 4.235 148.5
CDB2 39.2 33.1 4.795 177.0
CDB3 25.0 22.0 3.987 215.5
CDB4 31.5 28.0 4.319 223.5
CDB5 32.0 28.7 4.195 254.5
CDB6 26.5 22.5 4.187 254.5
CDB7 30.9 26.7 4.847 173.5
CDB8 29.4 23.6 4.107 219.0

the specimens. The yield stress fy is obtained by 0.2 percent

proof strain as shown in Fig. 3 and Table 1. The modulus of
elasticity E is the slope of the linear portion of the stress-
strain curve as shown in Fig. 3.

INSTRUMENTATION
The specimens were heavily instrumented to get as much
information as possible. Most of the results were recorded
automatically using the data logger and the rest were
measured manually. Only one support reaction was
measured using a load cell to allow calculation of the internal
forces. The other two supports rested on flat plates to combat
instability out of the beam plane as shown in Fig. 4. The load
cell reading was recorded automatically using the data
logger. The steel strains were measured using 5-mm (0.2-in.)
electrical resistance strain gages (ERS). All ERS gages used
in one beam were concentrated on one span of the beam as
symmetrical behavior for both spans was assumed. The
number of ERS gages used was varied from one beam to
another depending on the amount of the web reinforcement.
The concrete strains were measured across 4-in. (102-mm)
gage length demec points. The strains between these demec
points were measured manually using a demountable
mechanical strain gage with 20-microstrain accuracy for the
rosettes or using portable electrical strain gages connected to
the data logger. The midspan deflections of each span and
support settlements were measured using linear transducers
that transform the change of displacement into a change of Fig. 2—Details of specimen reinforcement.
electrical resistance. The electrical resistance produced from
the transducer was recorded automatically using the data
logger. The transducers were attached to a rigid scaffold applied in increments of 5 tons (11 kips) until failure
frame that was built around the beam before testing. occurred. After each increment, the load was kept constant to
allow marking of the new cracks and running of the data
TEST RESULTS logger. Manual concrete strain measurements (rosette demec
The test specimens were tested in a compression machine points) were recorded every two increments (10 tons) (22
with a total capacity of 500 tons (1100 kips). Special kips). The test was under load control until the specimen
arrangements had been taken to obtain two point loads and reached its peak strength. After the peak strength of the spec-
three support reactions as shown in Fig. 4. A top steel imen and during softening, two more readings were recorded
spreader beam was used to divide the total applied load from by the data logger whenever that was possible.
the machine head into two equal point loads, one in each
span. Another stiffer steel beam was placed underneath the Specimen behavior
tested specimens to collect the three support reactions to the The first midspan crack generally occurred at the same
other head of the machine as shown in Fig. 4. The load was time as the first flexural crack over the intermediate support

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1997 5

 Fig. 3—Stress-strain curves for different reinforcing bars.

Fig. 4—Test setup.

as shown in Table 4. Then the first diagonal crack suddenly formed and a diagonal crack extended to join the edges of the
developed at middepth within the intermediate shear span applied load and intermediate support plates. As the rein-
between the applied load and the intermediate support. forcement was yielding, cracks became wider and the deflec-
Significant redistribution of internal stresses clearly tion significantly increased. Just before failure, the two spans
occurred after development of the first diagonal crack. As showed nearly the same crack patterns. At failure, an end
the load increased, more flexural and diagonal cracks were block formed because of the significant diagonal crack

6 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1997

Table 4—First flexural and diagonal cracking load
First flexural cracking load First diagonal
Over intermediate cracking load,
Beam no. Midspan, tons support, tons tons
CDB1 40 40 45
CDB2 30 30 35
CDB3 25 25 35
CDB4 30 30 35
CDB5 25 25 35
CDB6 15 15 25
CDB7 15 15 25
CDB8 15 15 25

(a)
Table 5—Failure loads and support reactions
Beam no. Pt, tons R, tons Q, tons τ λ
CDB1 110.0 19.9 35.1 0.156 0.244
CDB2 95.0 16.9 30.6 0.127 0.191
CDB3 57.0 10.48 18.02 0.109 0.172
CDB4 88.5 15.86 28.39 0.135 0.207
CDB5 82.0 15.2 25.8 0.121 0.190
CDB6 49.5 9.14 15.61 0.136 0.220
CDB7 44.5 8.2 14.05 0.110 0.163
CDB8 38.5 6.88 12.37 0.103 0.160
Note: Pt = total failure load; R = end support reaction; Q = maximum shear force
within intermediate shear span; τ = Q/bhf ′c =nondimensional shear strength; λ =
Pt /2bhf ′c =nondimensional failure load

(b)
connecting the edges of the load and intermediate support
plates and rotated about the end support, leaving the rest of Fig. 5—Crack patterns and failure zones of tested beams.
the beam fixed over the other two supports. At the separation
line between the end block and the rest of the beam, concrete
crushing and concrete separation were observed at the top and CDB4 (only vertical web reinforcement), it can be
and bottom ends of that separation line, respectively, as concluded that the vertical web reinforcement had more
shown in Fig. 5 [Fig. 5(a) for CDB5 (as an example of beams influence on capacity than the horizontal web reinforcement.
in Series I) and Fig. 5(b) for CDB7 (as an example of beams in The continuous deep beams tested by Rogowsky et al.2 had
Series II)]. shear span-to-depth ratios that ranged between 0.75 and 2.5.
The observed mode of failure suggests that the mechanism They observed that the horizontal web reinforcement had no
analysis of failure appears very promising. Equating the effect on the capacity of the tested beams.
internal energy dissipated in the concrete and reinforcement
along the failure zone to the external work by the external Midspan deflections
applied load produces an upper-bound on the failure load. The midspan deflections for different beams against the
Full details of this analysis are given in a companion paper.9 total applied loads are given in Fig. 7: Fig. 7(a) for beams in
Series I and Fig. 7(b) for beams in Series II. The deflections
End support reactions and failure loads given are calculated relative to the intermediate support
Figure 6 shows the amount of the load transferred to the movement. The midspan deflections shown in Fig. 7 are
end support against the total applied load: Fig. 6(a) for beams those recorded for the failed span. At low load level (up to
in Series I and Fig. 6(b) for beams in Series II. On the same the first cracking load), the midspan deflections for each
figure, the end support reaction obtained from linear elastic series seem to be independent of the amount and type of web
finite element analysis (plane stress) is presented. Although reinforcement. Formation of the first diagonal crack signifi-
the amount of the web reinforcement influences the cantly reduced the beam stiffness. All tested specimens
maximum reaction at the end support, it has no effect on the exhibited some ductility at failure. The degree of ductility
total load-end support reaction gradient. The gradient is varied depending on the shear span-to-depth ratio and the
nearly the same as obtained from linear elastic analysis up to amount of reinforcement. CDB3 that had only horizontal
the first cracking load, and then the redistribution of stresses web reinforcement showed the lowest ductility at failure.
increases the end support reaction more than that predicted Beams having higher shear span-to-depth ratio (beams in
by the linear elastic finite element. Table 5 gives total failure Series II) produced more ductility.
loads Pt, end support reactions R at failure, maximum shear
forces Q within the intermediate shear span, nondimensional Support settlements
shear strengths τ = Q/bhf c′ , and nondimensional failure loads Continuous deep beams are sensitive to differential
in each span λ = Pt/2bhf c′ for tested beams. Comparing the support settlements. The uniform settlement of supports has
load capacity of CDB3 (only horizontal web reinforcement) no effect on internal stresses. The settlement of the exterior

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1997 7

 Fig. 7—Midspan deflection and total applied load relationship.

supports, and the setting of the gypsum then took up any

gaps. The support settlements did not seem to influence the
test results because of the following:
1. The differential support settlements recorded were
small and ranged between l/2500 and l/1330 (0.536 and 1.0
Fig. 6—End-support reaction against total applied load. mm; 0.021 and 0.04 in.) where l is the beam span, which is
much smaller than might occur in real structures.
2. The recorded end reaction during tests and the linear
supports relative to the intermediate support was recorded. If elastic end reaction (obtained from plane stress finite
this value is positive, then the hogging bending moment over element analysis assuming zero support settlement) were
the central support will be increased and the sagging bending very similar before the first cracking of beams had occurred
moment within the span will be reduced. For the beams as shown in Fig. 6.
tested, the sources of the relative support settlements were 3. The recorded end support settlements relative to the
the elastic deflection of the bottom steel spreader beam and intermediate support were positive for all tested beams. So,
shortening of the load cell and the packing plates. The the hogging bending moment over the central support would
bottom spreader consists of two universal steel I-beams have been increased and the sagging bending moment within
bolted together. The second moment of area of the beam the span would have been reduced. However, the first crack
cross section about the bending axis is 7.2 × 108 mm4 over the intermediate support occurred at the same load as
(1729.8 in.4), then the elastic deflection under a point load p the first crack at the midspan, providing that the top and
(in kN) at a distance 1400 mm (55.1 in.) from the lower head bottom longitudinal reinforcement were proportioned for
of the machine is 0.006p mm. The maximum end reaction elastic analysis of two-span beams. That means the differen-
recorded for all tested beams was 19.9 tons (43.9 kips) and tial settlement had no significant effect on elastic behavior,
the elastic deflection under that load is 1.2 mm (0.047 in.). and would have less significance at higher loads in any case.
As shown in Fig. 4, packing plates were used under the inter-
mediate support and one end support to compensate the Steel strains
height of the load cell under the other end support. To adjust The variation of strains in different reinforcing bars against
the beam vertically and horizontally in the test rig, the top the total applied load will be presented for four beams, CDB1,
plates of the three supports were covered by a thin layer of CDB3, CDB5, and CDB7. In some cases, the ERS gages were
gypsum plaster, the specimen was lowered slowly over the near but not at major crack positions, and so (depending on

8 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1997

Fig. 8—CDB1 reinforcement strains.
Fig. 9—CDB3 reinforcement strains.

bond properties) yield could have occurred at the crack even

though not shown by the ERS gages on the steel.
CDB1 steel strains—CDB1 had heavy horizontal and
vertical web reinforcement as shown in Fig. 2(a). Figure 8(a)
shows the positions of different ERS gages attached to the
reinforcement. Fig. 8(b) presents the variation of steel strains
with the total applied load. Major redistribution of strains
occurred at the bottom reinforcement after the first diagonal
crack (strains at 9 and 10). After this the bottom longitudinal
reinforcement was in tension throughout the length of the
beam (strains at Points 9, 10, and 11, even over the interme-
diate support, Gage 8) and yielded at failure (Point 9). The
top reinforcement was in tension throughout the length of the
interior shear span but did not yield, and neither did the web
reinforcement. The failure was not in the instrumented span.
CDB3 steel strains—CDB3 had light horizontal web rein-
forcement and no vertical web reinforcement as shown in
Fig. 2(c). Figure 9(a) shows the positions of the ERS gages
attached to the reinforcement. Fig. 9(b) gives the variation of
steel strains at different reinforcement positions with the
total applied load. Significant redistribution of strains at Fig. 10—CDB5 reinforcement strains.
Points 3, 4, and 6 took place when the major diagonal crack
within the intermediate shear span extended to join the edges
of the load and support plates. The web horizontal reinforce- bottom longitudinal reinforcement (Points 1 and 8) yielded.
ment (Points 3 and 4) yielded at failure. The failure was in The failure was in the instrumented span.
the instrumented span. CDB7 steel strains—CDB7 had light horizontal and
CDB5 steel strains—CDB5 had light horizontal and vertical web reinforcement as shown in Fig. 2(g). Figure 11(a)
vertical web reinforcement, and the top and bottom longitudinal shows the positions of different ERS gages attached to the
bars were reduced as shown in Fig. 2(e). Figure 10(a) shows reinforcement. Figure 11(b) presents the variation of the
the positions of the ERS gages attached to the reinforcement. reinforcement strains against the total applied load. The first
Fig. 10(b) presents the variation of steel strains at different flexural visual crack occurred at 15 tons (33.1 kips) and the
reinforcement positions with the total applied load. The slope of the total load strain at Points 1, 4, 5, and 7 became
gradient of the total applied load-strain relation at Points 1 flatter. Just before failure, major redistribution of the vertical
and 8 changed after the first flexural crack (at 25 tons [55.1 stirrup strain (Point 4) took place and this stirrup yielded.
kips]). Major redistribution of strains at Points 3, 5, 6, and 7 The failure was not in the instrumented span.
at a load of 55 tons (121.3 kips) took place when the diagonal
crack within the internal shear span extended to join the edges Concrete strains
of the load and support plates. Most of the web reinforce- Figure 12 shows strains recorded on the concrete surface
ment (Points 3, 5, and 6) yielded. The other recorded web just before failure for two tested beams: Fig. 12(a) for Beam
strain (Point 4) was very close to yielding. The top and CDB5 at a load of 80 tons (176.4 kips) and Fig. 12(b) for

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1997 9

 Table 6(a)—Comparison between test results and
ACI Building Code (318-89)
Experimental/
Beam no. vc vsh vsv vt building code
CDB1 0.062 0.087 0.025 0.174 0.897
CDB2 0.059 0.039 0.011 0.109 1.165
CDB3 0.074 0.060 — 0.134 0.813
CDB4 0.064 — 0.013 0.077 1.750
CDB5 0.059 0.046 0.013 0.118 1.025
CDB6 0.040 0.055 0.023 0.118 1.153
CDB7 0.036 0.023 0.010 0.069 1.590
CDB8 0.036 0.026 0.011 0.073 1.410
Note:
vc = nondimensional shear strength resisted by concrete (vc = Vc /bhfc′ where Vc =
shear force resisted by concrete.
vsh = nondimensional shear strength resisted by horizontal web reinforcement (vsh =
Vsh/bhfc′ where Vsh = shear force resisted by horizontal web reinforcement).
vsv = nondimensional shear strength resisted by vertical web reinforcement (vsv = Vsv /
bhfc′ where Vsv = shear force resisted by vertical web reinforcement).
vt = total nondimensional shear strength = vc + vsh + vsv.
Fig. 11—CDB7 reinforcement strains.
Table 6(b)—Comparison between test results and
CIRIA Guide 2
Beam Experimental/
no. vc vsh vsv vsm vt building code
CDB1 0.096 0.007 0.0045 0.043 0.151 1.033
CDB2 0.090 0.0032 0.0021 0.039 0.134 0.948
CDB3 0.108 0.0048 — 0.059 0.172 0.634
CDB4 0.095 — 0.0024 0.046 0.143 0.944
CDB5 0.094 0.0037 0.0024 0.019 0.119 1.017
CDB6 0.089 0.0027 0.0074 0.050 0.149 0.913
CDB7 0.080 0.0011 0.0031 0.042 0.126 0.873
CDB8 0.089 0.0013 0.0036 0.024 0.118 0.873
Note:
vc = nondimensional shear strength resisted by concrete (vc = Vc /bhfc′ where Vc = shear
force resisted by concrete.
vsh = nondimensional shear strength resisted by horizontal web reinforcement (vsh
= Vsh/bhfc′ where Vsh = shear force resisted by horizontal web reinforcement).
vsm = nondimensional shear strength resisted by main longitudinal reinforcement (vsm =
Vsm/bhfc′ where Vsm = shear force resisted by main longitudinal reinforcement.
vsv = nondimensional shear strength resisted by vertical web reinforcement (vsv = Vsv /bhfc′
where Vsν = shear force resisted by vertical web reinforcement).
νt = total nondimensional shear strength = vc + vsh + vsv+ vsm.

Strain distributions in concrete and longitudinal reinforce-

ment and observed patterns of inclined cracks gave the
appearance of a strut-and-tie model to the beams, with the
top and bottom longitudinal reinforcement acting as tie
members and concrete portions outside the major cracked
zone between the applied load and supports acting as struts.
Fig. 12—Recorded strains on concrete surface. More details of this approach may be found in Reference 10.

TEST RESULTS COMPARED WITH

Beam CDB7 at a load of 40 tons (88.2 kips). Two rosettes are CURRENT CODES OF PRACTICE
chosen on the middle of the two diagonals connecting the Comparisons between test results and the predictions of
edges of the load and support plates and the strain magnitude different codes of practice for continuous deep beams,
is indicated by the length of line plotted. The recorded strains namely the ACI Building Code (318-89)7 and CIRIA Guide
at the rosette on the middle of the diagonal connecting the 2,6 are presented in the following. The ACI Building Code
edges of the load and the central support plates are much provides special provisions for shear strength of continuous
higher than those recorded at the rosette on the middle of the deep beams of clear span-to-depth ratios less than 5, while
diagonal connecting the edges of the load and end support the CIRIA Guide 2 rules for continuous deep beams apply
plates. The concrete strains at different stages of loading and for beams having span-to-depth ratios below 2.5. Beams in
other beams are similar and they do not help in drawing more Series I (CDB1 to CDB5) satisfy both definitions and beams
conclusions. So, the rest of the concrete strains will be omitted. in Series II (CDB6 to CDB8) fit the ACI Building Code

10 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1997

(318-89) requirement but just violate the upper limit of the higher than that obtained from CIRIA Guide 2 rules, and
CIRIA Guide 2 continuous deep beam definition. both design methods predict that the portion of the shear
Table 6 shows the comparison between the total shear strength resisted by the horizontal web reinforcement is
strength νt of the tested beams, predicted by the ACI higher than that resisted by the vertical web reinforcement
Building Code (318-89) [Table 6(a)] and CIRIA Guide 2 (contrary to experimental observations).
[Table 6(b)] with all safety factors removed, and the test
results τ = Q/bhf c′ given in Table 5. The table shows the contri- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
bution from concrete νc , vertical web reinforcement νsv , The work described in this paper was carried out in the Structures Research
horizontal web reinforcement νsh , and main longitudinal Laboratory at Cambridge University, U.K., and was financed by the
Cambridge Overseas Trust. The assistance of the staff and financial support
reinforcement νsm (the ACI Building Code formula includes are gratefully acknowledged. The author is deeply grateful to Dr. C. T. Morley
the effect of the main longitudinal reinforcement in the at Cambridge University for his guidance and support throughout this project.
concrete contribution). The ratio between the experimental
and ACI Building Code shear strength for different beams NOTATION
ranges from 0.813 to 1.750, with an average of 1.23, 31 As = cross-sectional area of reinforcing bar
percent standard deviation, and 25 percent coefficient of E = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing bars
variation, while the ratio between the experimental and f ′c = cylinder compressive strength of concrete
fcu = cube compressive strength
CIRIA Guide 2 shear strength ranges from 0.634 to 1.033,
ft = modulus of rupture of concrete
with an average of 0.904, 12 percent standard deviation, and fy = yield stress of reinforcing bars
13 percent coefficient of variation. Both design methods Gf = fracture energy of concrete
predict that the amount of shear resisted by the horizontal h = total depth of test specimens
reinforcement is higher than that resisted by the vertical web l = span of specimens
reinforcement. The contribution of the web reinforcement to L = total length of test specimens
Pt = total failure load
the shear strength predicted by the CIRIA Guide 2 rules is Q = maximum shear force within intermediate shear span
less than that predicted by the ACI Building Code equations. R = end support reaction
The shear strengths obtained from CIRIA Guide 2 are vc = nondimensional shear strength resisted by concrete (vc = Vc/bhfc′)
unconservative for six beams (CDB2, CDB3, CDB4, CDB6, Vc = shear force resisted by concrete
CDB7, and CDB8), while ACI Building Code predictions vsh = nondimensional shear strength resisted by horizontal web rein-
are unconservative for two beams (CDB1 and CDB3). The forcement (vsh = Vsh/bhfc′)
Vsh = shear force resisted by horizontal web reinforcement
discrepancy in the results predicted by the ACI Building vsm = nondimensional shear strength resisted by main longitudinal
Code (318-89) and CIRIA Guide 2 may be attributed to the reinforcement (vsm = Vsm/bhfc′)
fact that the shear strength equations for continuous deep Vsm = shear force resisted by main longitudinal reinforcement
beams in both design methods are derived from simple deep vsv = nondimensional shear strength resisted by vertical web rein-
beam tests and are not based on a rational theory. forcement (vsv = Vsv /bhfc′)
Vsv = shear force resisted by vertical web reinforcement
vt = nondimensional shear strength of concrete
CONCLUSIONS τ = nondimensional shear strength (τ = Q/bhfc′)
The parameters studied in this experimental investigation λ = nondimensional failure loads in each span (λ = Pt/2bhfc′)
were the degree of vertical and horizontal web reinforce-
ment, shear span-to-depth ratio, and amount of main longitu- REFERENCES
dinal reinforcement. The following behavior was observed: 1. Kong, F. K., Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, Blackie and Son Ltd.,
1. All beams exhibited the same type of failure. A major 1990, 288 pp.
2. Rogowsky, D. M.; MacGregor, J. G.; and Ong, S. Y., “Tests of
diagonal crack in the intermediate shear span ran between the Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 83, No. 4,
edges of the load and the intermediate support plates. An end July-Aug. 1986, pp. 614-623.
block then formed and rotated about the end support, leaving 3. Kong, F. K.; Robins, P. J.; and Cole, D. F., “Web Reinforcement
the rest of the beam fixed over the other two supports. Effects on Deep Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 67, No. 6, Dec.
2. The shear capacity is influenced by the type of web 1970, pp. 1010-1017.
4. Leonhardt, F., and Walther, R., “Deep Beams,” Deutscher Ausschuss
reinforcement. Comparing the load capacity of CDB3 and Für Stahlbeton Bulletin 178, 1966, Wilhelm Ernst and Sohn (Berlin),
CDB4, it may be concluded that the vertical web reinforcement CIRIA English Translation, Jan. 1970.
had more influence on the shear capacity than the horizontal 5. CEB-FIP, “Model Code for Concrete Structure,” English Edition,
web reinforcement. Cement and Concrete Association, London, 1987.
3. The variation of strains along the main longitudinal 6. CIRIA Guide 2, “The Design of Deep Beams in Reinforced
Concrete,” Over Arup and Partners and Construction Industry Research
top and bottom bars is dependent on the shear span-to- and Information Association, London, 1977 (Reprint 1984), 131 pp.
depth ratio. The lower the shear span-to-depth ratio, the 7. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
less variation is observed. Concrete (ACI 318-89) and Commentary (318R-89),” American Concrete
4. The recorded strains on the concrete surface in the Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 p.
failure zone are much higher than those recorded elsewhere. 8. RILEM Draft Recommendation (50-FMC), “Determination of the
Fracture Energy of Mortar and Concrete by Means of Three-Point Bend
5. The comparison between test results and current codes Tests on Notched Beams,” Material and Structures Journal, RILEM, V. 18,
of practice (ACI Building Code [318-89] and CIRIA Guide No. 106, pp. 285-290.
2) shows poor agreement. The ACI Building Code (318-89) 9. Ashour, A. F., and Morley, C. T., “Effectiveness Factor of Concrete in
predictions are unconservative for two beams while the CIRIA Continuous Deep Beams,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 122,
No. 2, Feb. 1996, pp. 169-178.
Guide 2 predictions are unconservative for six beams. 10. Rogowsky, M. D., and MacGregor, J. G., “Design of Reinforced
6. The contribution of the web reinforcement to shear Concrete Deep Beams,” Concrete International: Design and Construction,
strength obtained from the ACI Building Code (318-89) is V. 8, No. 8, Aug. 1986, pp. 49-58.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 1997 11