ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 104-S61

TECHNICAL PAPER

Strut-and-Tie Model Analysis for Strength Prediction of Deep Beams

by Jung-woong Park and Daniel Kuchma
In this paper, a strut-and-tie-based method is presented for calculating the strength of reinforced concrete deep beams. The proposed method employs constitutive laws for cracked reinforced concrete, considers strain compatibility, and uses a secant stiffness formulation. This method accounts for the failure modes due to crushing of the nodal compression zone at the top of the diagonal strut, yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement, as well as that of strut crushing or splitting. This method is used to calculate the capacity of 214 normal- and high-strength concrete deep beams that have been tested in laboratories. This method is illustrated to provide more accurate estimates of capacity than the strut-and-tie provisions in either ACI 318-05 or the Canadian code. The comparison shows that the proposed method consistently predicts the strengths of deep beams with a wide range of horizontal and vertical web reinforcement ratios, concrete strengths, and shear span-to-depth ratios (a/d) well. The proposed approach provides valuable insight into the design and behavior of deep beams.
Keywords: deep beams; failure strength; shear strength; strut-and-tie model.

INTRODUCTION According to St. Venants principle and as illustrated by elastic analyses, there is a complex state of strain in deep beams. Thus, traditional sectional design approaches that are based on the plane sections theory and use a parallel chord truss model are not applicable for the design of deep beams. The strut-and-tie model is gaining widespread use and respect as a rational method for the design of deep beams. Provisions for the design of deep beams using a strut-and-tie model have been included in several codes and guidelines for practice, including AASHTO LRFD,1 ACI 318,2 CEB-FIP,3 and the Canadian code.4 With the addition of the procedure in Appendix A, Strut-and-Tie Models, of the 2005 ACI building code, the deep beam provisions for evaluating Vc and Vs for deep beams as given in the 1999 version of ACI 318 were deleted. In using Appendix A, designers are free to choose the shape and dimensions of the load-resisting truss (strut-and-tie model) to carry the imposed loads through the D-region to its supports. More than one strut-and-tie model is usually feasible and thus there is no single design solution as there typically is with the use of sectional design procedures. Many designers are uncomfortable with the flexibility provided by the strut-and-tie method, which is often called an approximate approach with undetermined accuracy. It has be argued that the strut-and-tie method is similar to the strip method for the design of two-way slabs5 in which the designer selects the load path and then provides the reinforcement accordingly; but unlike two-way slabs, discontinuity regions are inherently nonductile and this flexibility in design could lead to significant cracking and local crushing under service load levels and inadequate strength to support factored loads when inappropriate strut-and-tie models are selected. Thus, it is important for the research community to further evaluate ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

the strengths and limitations of strut-and-tie design procedures so that needed changes in codes of practice can be made and guidelines produced. This study focuses only on the application of the strut-and-tie method to deep beams. In this study, a strut-and-tie model approach was developed for calculating the capacity of reinforced concrete deep beams, and the effectiveness of two strut-and-tie design methods in current codes was evaluated. The proposed approach is a compatibility-based strut-and-tie method that considers the effects of compression softening of cracked concrete. This concept has been previously applied to predict the shear strengths of several discontinuity regions such as deep beams,6 corbels,7 squat walls,8 exterior beam-column joints,9 and interior beam-column joints.10 The authors approach builds upon and differs from previous methods in that it uses a statically determinate truss for modeling the flow of forces and a secant stiffness formulation in evaluating capacity. The resulting model offers an effective and new approach for the use of compatibility-based strut-and-tie methods for predicting the strength and behavior of deep beams. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Beginning in 2002, the ACI building code stated that deep beams should be designed using either nonlinear analysis or using the strut-and-tie model. The strut-and-tie provisions in ACI 318-02 were developed for the design of all forms of discontinuity regions and not specifically deep beams. Thus, it is not surprising that this study reveals that Appendix A of ACI 318-05 provides conservative and scattered estimates of the strength of deep beams. The proposed compatibilitybased strut-and-tie method, which considers the effects of compression softening, is shown to provide accurate estimates of the measured load-carrying capacities of reinforced concrete deep beams. The findings illustrate that the inexactness of Appendix A should not be considered an indictment on strutand-tie design methods but rather point out areas for improvement in provisions and the necessity of additional guidelines for design by this method. STRUT-AND-TIE MODEL APPROACH FOR DEEP BEAMS Although several different types of strut-and-tie models are possible for describing the flow of forces in deep beams, the statically determinate model shown in Fig. 1 is used in this study. This selection avoids the need to consider the relative stiffness of strut-and-tie members in determining member
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 6, November-December 2007. MS No. S-2006-006.R1 received April 16, 2007, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the SeptemberOctober 2008 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by May 1, 2008.

657

Jung-woong Park is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL. He received his PhD from Kyungpook National University, Korea. Daniel Kuchma, FACI, is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is a member of ACI Committees 318, Structural Concrete Building Code; 318E, Shear and Torsion (Structural Concrete Building Code); and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. He received his PhD from the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

V F c = ---------tan V F t = ------------4 sin

(2)

(3)

Fig. 1Strut-and-tie model for deep beam. forces. This model is used in the development of a general approach that considers the compression softening and web splitting phenomena as influenced by transverse tensile straining. In this model, reinforcement for resisting the bursting of the strut is shown to be oriented normal to the direction of applied compression. In traditional design practice in which an orthogonal grid of reinforcement is provided, as has been used in most tests, the contribution of this reinforcement in the direction of the ties, as shown in Fig. 1, can readily be evaluated to calculate the effect of compression softening on the stiffness and strength of diagonal struts. Experiments have shown that for the majority of simply supported deep beams with a shear span-to-depth ratio (a/d) less than approximately 2.5, two nonflexural modes of failure are common, namely, diagonal splitting and concrete crushing. Test members, however, may often be more accurately described as having combined bending and shear failures. The authors approach considers all of these possible modes of failure. While ACI 318-05 places a limit on the angle between the axes of struts and ties of 25 degrees, this limit was disregarded in this study to examine its relevance. The details of the proposed strut-and-tie approach are now presented. Force equilibrium Softened truss models by other researchers have typically used statically indeterminate strut-and-tie models. This means that it was necessary to assume a stiffness ratio between the components of these statically indeterminate trusses to solve for member forces. As one example, in Hwangs model,6 these ratios were based on the linear elastic finite element analyses and suggestions by Schfer.11 It is considered to be a primary advantage of the authors model to use a statically determinate model (refer to Fig. 1) as it avoids the necessity of such assumptions. The authors also contend that their selected model captures the primary flow of forces and resistance provided by reinforcement in deep beams well. Equilibrium provides the following equations (Fig. 1) VF d = ---------sin 658 (1)

where Fd, Fc, and Ft are the compressive forces in the diagonal and horizontal concrete struts, and the bursting tensile force in the tie of the strut-and-tie model, as shown in Fig. 1. While the traditional symbol for shear V is used to define the magnitude of the point loads and reaction forces, it should be recognized that the strut-and-tie method is a full member design procedure and does not explicitly consider shear. The compressive force in the strut is assumed to spread at a 2:1 slope as indicated in ACI 318-05, Section A.3.3 (Fig. RA.1.8(b)). Because the tensile force Ft is a quarter of the compressive force of the diagonal strut Fd, the horizontal and vertical components of the tie force can be obtained from equilibrium as follows F d sin V - = ---------------F h = -4 4 F d cos V - = ----------------F v = ------------4 tan 4 (4)

(5)

where Fh and Fv are the horizontal and vertical component of the tie force, respectively. Secant stiffness formulation The proposed compatibility-based strut-and-tie model procedure uses an iterative secant stiffness formulation and employs constitutive relations for concrete and steel. With this approach, the material stiffness properties are refined in each iteration until convergence is achieved. The secant stiffness formulation has previously been used for predicting the response of structural concrete, such a done by Vecchio12 in nonlinear continuum analysis applications. In the authors approach, the strains in the horizontal concrete strut, diagonal concrete strut, horizontal web steel tie, vertical web steel tie, and the longitudinal steel tie can be calculated using a secant stiffness approach as follows Fc c = ----------Ec Ac Fd d = ----------Ed Ad 2 Fh h = --------------E sh A sh 2 Fv v = -------------E sv A sv T s = ---------Es As (6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

where Ac, Ad, Ash, Asv, and As are effective cross-sectional areas for each member; Ec, Ed, Esh, Esv, and Es are secant moduli as evaluated by fc E c = --c fd E d = ---d f sh E sh = ----h f sv E sv = ---v fs E s = --s (11)

where 0 is a concrete cylinder strain corresponding to the cylinder strength fc, which can be approximately defined17 as f c 20 0 = 0.002 + 0.001 ---------------- for 20 f c 100 MPa (19) 80 f c 2901 = 0.002 + 0.001 ---------------------- for 2901 f c 14, 504 psi 11, 603 The steel bar is assumed to be an elastic-perfectly-plastic material in this approach.

(12)

(13) Compatibility relations The strain compatibility relation used in this study is that the sum of normal strain in two perpendicular directions is an invariant, that is h + v = r + d (15) (20)

(14)

where fc, fd, fsh, fsv, and fs are stresses that are obtained from the constitutive relations of each member, and the initial values of secant moduli are the elastic moduli for concrete and reinforcing bars. Because the stiffness is calculated at the element level, the total stiffness matrix of the system does not have to be constructed in the proposed approach but rather it can be readily implemented in a spreadsheet. Constitutive laws Cracked reinforced concrete can be treated as an orthotropic material with its principal axes corresponding to the directions of the principal average tensile and compressive strains. Cracked concrete subjected to high tensile strains in the direction normal to the compression is observed to be softer than concrete in a standard cylinder test.13-16 This phenomenon of strength and stiffness reduction is commonly referred to as compression softening. Applying this softening effect to the strut-and-tie model, it is recognized that the tensile straining perpendicular to the strut will reduce the capacity of the concrete strut to resist compressive stresses. Multiple compression softening models were used in this study to investigate the sensitivity of the results to the selected model. All models were found to provide similarly good results as will be illustrated later in the paper. The compression softening model proposed by Hsu and Zhang13 was somewhat arbitrarily selected for the base comparisons and is now described. The stresses of concrete struts are determined from the following equations proposed by Hsu and Zhang13 d d 2 d = f c 2 ------- ------ 0 0 d ( d ) 1 d = f c 1 ----------------------------- 2 ( 1)
2

where h and v are tensile strains in the horizontal and vertical web steel ties, respectively; d is the compressive strain in the concrete strut; and r is the tensile strain in the direction perpendicular to the concrete strut. Equation (20) is derived from the strain compatibility condition as described by Mohrs circle of strain. Effective depth of concrete strut and node The effective depth of the top horizontal concrete strut was taken as wc = kd (21)

where d is the effective depth of deep beam and k was derived from the classical bending theory for a single reinforced beam section as k = (n) + 2n n
2

(22)

where n is the ratio of steel to concrete elastic moduli and is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio. The effective depth of the diagonal concrete strut was taken as a - sin + kd cos w d = -2 (23)

where a/2 should not be less than the length of the loading plate, kd is the depth of the compression zone at the section, and the inclination angle of the diagonal strut with respect to the horizontal axis can be obtained from kd 2 tan = d --------------------a (24)

d for -------1 0 d ->1 for ------ 0

(16)

(17)

1 0.9 5.8 - -------------------------- ------------------------- = -------1 + 400 r 1 + 400 r fc ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

(18)

The notations for obtaining the effective depth wd of Eq. (23) and strut angle of Eq. (24) are given in Fig. 1. The proposed method evaluates the capacity as limited by the failure modes associated with nodal crushing, yielding of the longitudinal tension reinforcement, and crushing or splitting of the diagonal strut. The effective width of the top node of the horizontal concrete strut was taken as a quarter of the overall height of 659

the deep beam based on the suggestion of Paulay and Priestley18 for the depth of the flexural compression zone of a column as N c = 0.25 + 0.85 ----------- h c A g f c (25)

where N is the axial force, Ag is the gross area, and hc is the overall height of the column. The effective width of the top node in the face of the diagonal concrete strut was taken as h w nd = w p sin + -- cos 4 (26)

where wp is the width of the loading plate. It is important to also account for the different behavior of high-strength concrete deep beams with no web reinforcement or very light amounts of web reinforcements as they exhibited more brittle failures than normal-strength concrete beams with similar levels of web reinforcement.17,19-21 In a recent investigation into the strength of high-strength concrete deep beams19 at a/d greater than approximately 1.0, it was observed that web reinforcement restrained the development of a sudden shear failure. This indicates that if the web of a deep beam is heavily reinforced, the failure will be controlled by strut crushing; however, without sufficient reinforcement, failure can occur suddenly due to splitting of concrete struts. This splitting failure becomes more evident as concrete strength increases. To consider the brittleness of high-strength concrete, area reduction factors for diagonal concrete struts were introduced by the authors as c 1 = h + 0.75 for a d 0.75 c 2 = v + 0.75 for a d 1.0 (27) (28)

1. For a selected value of V, the member forces are calculated using Eq. (1) through (5) and the strains in concrete struts and steel ties are calculated using Eq. (6) through (10). When web reinforcement yielded or was not defined, the transverse strain was conservatively assumed to be 0.0025; 2. Using Eq. (20), the softening coefficient is calculated from Eq. (18); 3. Using the state of strain in each member, the stresses are determined from the stress-strain relations of Eq. (16) through (19). The factor accounts for the compression softening effect; 4. The secant moduli for each member are then determined by Eq. (11) through (15) using the values calculated in the previous step. If the differences between the secant moduli in this step and those calculated by Eq. (6) through (10) are larger than 0.1%, then the steps are repeated until convergence; and 5. The procedure is completed when the stress in either the horizontal or diagonal concrete strut reach their capacity or when the stress in the longitudinal tension reinforcement reaches its yield point. Then, the nominal failure strength due to crushing of horizontal or diagonal concrete struts, or yielding of longitudinal steel tie can be determined. The strength prediction is the minimum value of the strength computed in this iterative procedure. COMPARISON WITH TEST RESULTS The proposed method and code provisions are used to calculate the capacity of 214 reinforced concrete deep beams that were tested to failure and reported in the literature of the following eight investigations: Clark,23 Kong et al.,22 Smith and Vantsiotis,24 Anderson and Ramirez,25 Tan et al.,26 Oh and Shin,19 Aguilar et al., 27 and Quintero-Febres et al. 21 Only those references that provided sufficiently complete information on the test setup and material properties were used. This database is considered to be sufficiently large to enable a fair critique of code provisions and validation of the proposed model. The deep beams that were considered in this study include a/d ratios ranging from 0.27 to 2.7, concrete strengths that range from 13.8 to 73.6 MPa (2001 to 10,675 psi), and various combinations of web reinforcements. A summary of these beams is presented in Tables 1 through 8. Due to the small a/d, typically less than approximately 2.5 for a deep beam, a large portion of the supported loads are directly transmitted to supports. Therefore, the shear strength of deep beams has been experimentally observed to be significantly greater than that of slender beams. When the a/d is less than approximately 2.5, failures are typically observed to be due to crushing of concrete in the compression zone at the head of the inclined crack and in the region adjacent to the loading plate. This type of failure is typically referred to as a shear compression failure. Other types of failures include crushing of concrete in the web, splitting of the concrete along an inclined crack, crushing of concrete underneath the supports, and anchorage failure between the concrete and the main reinforcements. While the development of cracking and the progression of failures were reported to be similar in most specimens, a significant number of specimens were reported to fail by yielding of longitudinal reinforcement and combined bending and shear failures. One or more diagonal cracks were commonly observed to penetrate so deeply into the compression zone at the loading point that immediate failure occurred by crushing of the concrete in this location. It was reported that high-strength concrete deep beams without web reinforcement exhibited abrupt shear ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

where h and v are the ratios (in percent) of horizontal and vertical web reinforcement, respectively. The aim of the area reduction factors was to account for the brittle failure of deep beams for members starting with concrete strengths greater than 42 MPa (6092 psi) or when there was insufficient web reinforcement. This was selected to be when the reinforcement ratio is less than 0.25% in each direction. It is implied that the strut area is reduced by horizontal web reinforcement when a/d is less than 0.75, and by vertical web reinforcement when a/d is greater than 1.0. This approach is supported by experimental test data from which it has been generally observed that horizontal web reinforcement is more effective than vertical web reinforcement when a/d is less than 0.75, and that vertical web reinforcement is more effective than horizontal web reinforcement when a/d ratios are greater than or approximately equal to 1.0.20,22 The use of area reduction factors led to better agreement with the 214 test results examined in this study and the effective area of the diagonal concrete strut in Eq. (7) is expressed by Ad = c1c2wdb (29)

Solution procedure The solution procedure of the proposed method is summarized as follows. 660

Table 1Analysis results for Test Data 124

Vtest /Vn f c , a , Deep beam ID MPa mm a/d , % h, % v , Vtest, ACI fc, a, Current Deep % kN 318-05 CSA study beam ID MPa mm 139.5 136.1 1.90 1.81 1.72 1.64 1.75 1.66 1.74 1.61 1.72 1.69 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.71 1.68 2.20 1.49 1.59 1.50 1.75 1.50 1.54 1.61 1.53 1.64 1.79 1.73 1.19 1.14 1.49 1.41 1.48 1.45 1.53 1.42 1.50 1.48 1.46 1.50 1.55 1.50 1.47 1.57 1.53 1.61 1.53 1.76 1.51 1.54 1.59 1.57 1.65 1.76 1.76 1.14 1.09 1.45 1.39 1.49 1.39 1.46 1.34 1.45 1.42 1.42 1.47 1.51 1.44 1.42 1.39 1.35 1.45 1.36 1.59 1.37 1.40 1.47 1.39 1.49 1.65 1.58 a/d , % h, % v , % Vtest /Vn Vtest , ACI Current kN 318-05 CSA study 1.86 1.80 1.79 2.00 2.19 2.42 1.48 1.52 1.48 1.64 1.42 1.57 1.60 1.57 1.76 1.99 1.84 1.90 1.97 1.82 2.08 2.17 1.98 2.16 1.99 1.76 0.12 1.87 1.80 1.83 1.97 1.78 1.95 1.81 1.86 1.80 1.97 1.69 1.87 1.93 1.91 2.13 2.33 2.18 2.26 2.36 2.16 2.49 2.57 2.39 2.16 3.04 1.79 0.21 1.69 1.64 1.63 1.83 1.40 1.56 1.41 1.44 1.41 1.57 1.36 1.50 1.53 1.50 1.68 1.92 1.77 1.82 1.88 1.75 2.00 2.08 1.88 1.32 1.92 1.54 0.14

0A0-44 20.5 305 1.0 1.94 0A0-48 20.9 305 1.0 1.94

3B3-33 19.0 368 1.21 1.94 0.45 0.77 158.4 3B4-34 19.2 368 1.21 1.94 0.68 0.77 155.0 3B6-35 20.6 368 1.21 1.94 0.91 0.77 166.1 4B1-09 17.1 368 1.21 1.94 0.23 1.25 153.5 0C0-50 20.7 457 1C1-14 19.2 457 1C3-02 21.9 457 1C4-15 22.7 457 1C6-16 21.8 457 2C1-17 19.9 457 2C3-03 19.2 457 2C3-27 19.3 457 2C4-18 20.4 457 2C6-19 20.8 457 3C1-20 21.0 457 3C3-21 16.5 457 3C4-22 18.3 457 3C6-23 19.0 457 4C1-24 19.6 457 4C3-04 18.5 457 4C3-28 19.2 457 4C4-25 18.5 457 4C6-26 21.2 457 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.94 115.7 1.94 0.23 0.18 119.0 1.94 0.45 0.18 123.4 1.94 0.68 0.18 131.0 1.94 0.91 0.18 122.3 1.94 0.23 0.31 124.1 1.94 0.45 0.31 103.6 1.94 0.45 0.31 115.3 1.94 0.68 0.31 124.6 1.94 0.91 0.31 124.1 1.94 0.23 0.56 140.8 1.94 0.45 0.56 125.0 1.94 0.68 0.56 127.7 1.94 0.91 0.56 137.2 1.94 0.23 0.77 146.6 1.94 0.45 0.63 128.6 1.94 0.45 0.77 152.4 1.94 0.68 0.77 152.6 1.94 0.91 0.77 159.5 73.4 87.4

1A1-10 18.7 305 1.0 1.94 0.23 0.28 161.2 1A3-11 18.0 305 1.0 1.94 0.45 0.28 148.3 1A4-12 16.1 305 1.0 1.94 0.68 0.28 141.2 1A4-51 20.5 305 1.0 1.94 0.68 0.28 170.9 1A6-37 21.1 305 1.0 1.94 0.91 0.28 184.1 2A1-38 21.7 305 1.0 1.94 0.23 0.63 174.5 2A3-39 19.8 305 1.0 1.94 0.45 0.63 170.6 2A4-40 20.3 305 1.0 1.94 0.68 0.63 171.9 2A6-41 19.1 305 1.0 1.94 0.91 0.63 161.9 3A1-42 18.4 305 1.0 1.94 0.23 1.25 161.0 3A3-43 19.2 305 1.0 1.94 0.45 1.25 172.7 3A4-45 20.8 305 1.0 1.94 0.68 1.25 178.6 3A6-46 19.9 305 1.0 1.94 0.91 1.25 168.1 0B0-49 21.7 368 1.21 1.94 149.0 1B1-01 22.1 368 1.21 1.94 0.23 0.24 147.5 1B3-29 20.1 368 1.21 1.94 0.45 0.24 143.6 1B4-30 20.8 368 1.21 1.94 0.68 0.24 140.3 1B6-31 19.5 368 1.21 1.94 0.91 0.24 153.4 2B1-05 19.2 368 1.21 1.94 0.23 0.42 129.0 2B3-06 19.0 368 1.21 1.94 0.45 0.42 131.2 2B4-07 17.5 368 1.21 1.94 0.68 0.42 126.1 2B4-52 21.8 368 1.21 1.94 0.68 0.42 149.9 2B6-32 19.8 368 1.21 1.94 0.91 0.42 145.2 3B1-08 16.2 368 1.21 1.94 0.23 0.63 130.8 3B1-36 20.4 368 1.21 1.94 0.23 0.77 159.0

0D0-47 19.5 635 2.08 1.94 Average

4D1-13 16.1 635 2.08 1.94 0.23 0.42 Coefficient of variation

Note: member thickness b = 102 mm (4.0 in.); overall height h = 356 mm (14.0 in.); and effective depth d = 305 mm (12.0 in.) for all specimens of Test Data 1. 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; and 1 kN = 2.248 kips.

Table 2Analysis results for Test Data 222

Vtest /Vn f c , h , d, Deep beam ID MPa mm mm a/d 1-30 1-25 1-20 1-15 1-10 2-30 2-25 2-20 2-15 2-10 3-30 3-25 3-20 , % h, % v , Vtest, ACI Current Deep fc, h, d, % kN 318-05 CSA study beam ID MPa mm mm a/d 3.11 2.56 2.59 2.11 2.62 2.06 2.42 1.78 1.64 1.70 4.62 2.99 3.42 2.78 3.18 2.51 1.93 1.42 1.95 2.01 3.43 2.83 3.07 2.49 3.16 2.50 1.48 1.37 1.52 1.83 1.66 1.79 1.75 1.76 1.54 1.84 1.66 1.50 1.68 3-15 3-10 4-30 4-25 4-20 4-15 4-10 5-30 5-25 5-20 5-15 5-10 , % h, % Vtest /Vn v , Vtest , ACI Current % kN 318-05 CSA study 159 87 242 201 181 110 96 2.27 1.67 1.51 1.59 3.08 2.54 2.73 2.21 2.63 2.08 1.57 1.15 1.67 1.75 3.62 2.99 3.07 2.50 2.51 1.98 1.81 1.34 1.36 1.43 2.60 2.12 0.31 0.25 1.77 1.60 1.54 1.40 1.45 1.22 1.77 1.68 1.56 1.46 1.41 1.45 1.59 0.10

21.5 762 724 0.35 0.52 2.45 239 24.6 635 597 0.43 0.62 2.45 224 21.2 508 470 0.54 0.79 2.45 190 21.2 381 343 0.74 1.09 2.45 164 21.7 254 216 1.18 1.73 2.45 90 19.2 762 724 0.35 0.52 0.86 249 18.6 635 597 0.43 0.62 0.86 224 19.9 508 470 0.54 0.79 0.86 216 22.8 381 343 0.74 1.09 0.86 140 20.1 254 216 1.18 1.73 0.86 100 22.6 762 724 0.35 0.52 2.45 21.0 635 597 0.43 0.62 2.45 19.2 508 470 0.54 0.79 2.45 276 226 208

21.9 381 343 0.74 1.09 2.45 22.6 254 216 1.18 1.73 2.45 22.0 762 724 0.35 0.52 0.86 21.0 635 597 0.43 0.62 0.86 20.1 508 470 0.54 0.79 0.86 22.0 381 343 0.74 1.09 0.86 22.6 254 216 1.18 1.73 0.86

18.6 762 724 0.35 0.52 0.61 0.61 240 19.2 635 597 0.43 0.62 0.61 0.61 208 20.1 508 470 0.54 0.79 0.61 0.61 173 21.9 381 343 0.74 1.09 0.61 0.61 127 22.6 254 216 1.18 1.73 0.61 0.61 78 Average Coefficient of variation

Note: member thickness b = 76 mm (3.0 in.) and shear span a = 254 mm (10.0 in.) for all specimens of Test Data 2. Note that 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; and 1 kN = 2.248 kips.

failures without any warning, regardless of the a/d ratio. At a lower a/d of 0.5 and 0.85, in spite of vertical web reinforcement, most high-strength beams showed abrupt failures. At a higher a/d of 1.25 and 2.0, it was observed that web reinforcement restrained sudden shear failures. This brittle shear failure was more evident for members cast with higher strength ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

concretes. These observations were a motivation to introduce the area reduction factors for high-strength concrete. Strength predictions The calculated strengths by the three methods based on the strut-and-tie models (ACI 318-05,2 CSA,4 and the current 661

Table 3Analysis results for Test Data 323

Vtest /Vn fc, Deep beam ID MPa a, mm A1-1 A1-2 A1-3 A1-4 B1-1 B1-2 B1-3 B1-4 B1-5 B2-1 B2-2 B2-3 B6-1 C1-1 C1-2 C1-3 C1-4 C2-1 C2-2 24.6 23.6 23.4 24.8 23.4 25.4 23.7 23.3 24.6 23.2 26.3 24.9 42.1 25.6 26.3 24.0 29.0 23.6 25.0 914 914 914 914 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 762 610 610 610 610 610 610 Vtest, ACI fc, Current Deep a/d , % v, % kN 318-05 CSA study beam ID MPa a, mm a/d 2.34 3.10 0.38 222.5 2.05 2.63 1.43 C2-3 24.1 610 1.56 2.34 2.34 2.34 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.37 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.69 0.69 209.1 222.5 244.7 278.8 256.6 284.8 268.1 241.5 301.1 322.2 334.9 379.3 277.7 311.1 245.9 285.9 290.0 301.1 2.02 2.18 2.27 2.22 1.88 2.24 2.14 1.82 2.41 2.28 2.50 1.67 2.46 2.68 2.33 2.24 1.83 1.80 2.57 2.77 2.90 2.42 2.07 2.44 2.33 2.00 2.62 2.52 2.74 1.98 1.59 1.73 1.48 1.47 1.77 1.75 1.40 1.50 1.56 1.57 1.33 1.59 1.52 1.29 1.71 1.61 1.77 1.23 1.10 1.20 1.04 1.09 1.25 1.22 C2-4 C3-1 C3-2 C3-3 C4-1 C6-2 C6-3 C6-4 D1-1 D1-2 D1-3 D2-1 D2-2 D2-3 D2-4 D3-1 D4-1 27.0 14.1 13.8 13.9 24.5 45.2 44.7 47.6 26.2 26.1 24.5 24.0 25.9 24.8 24.5 28.2 23.1 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 610 457 457 457 457 457 457 457 457 457 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.56 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 1.17 Average Coefficient of variation Vtest /Vn Vtest, ACI Current , % v, % kN 318-05 CSA study 2.07 0.69 323.7 2.01 1.94 1.36 2.07 2.07 2.07 2.07 3.10 3.10 3.10 3.10 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 2.44 1.63 0.69 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.92 1.22 288.2 223.7 200.3 188.1 309.3 423.8 434.9 428.6 301.1 356.7 256.6 290.0 312.2 334.4 334.9 394.9 312.2 1.60 3.61 3.30 3.07 2.87 2.13 2.21 2.05 1.40 1.67 1.28 1.47 1.47 1.65 1.67 1.71 1.65 2.10 0.25 1.58 2.13 1.94 1.81 1.73 1.41 1.46 1.37 1.14 1.36 1.03 1.18 1.20 1.33 1.34 1.31 1.31 1.85 0.29 1.09 1.66 1.52 1.41 1.33 1.10 1.13 1.12 1.02 1.21 0.87 0.99 1.06 1.15 1.14 1.08 1.06 1.29 0.18

Note: member thickness b = 203 mm (8.0 in.); overall height h = 457 mm (18.0 in.); and effective depth d = 390 mm (15.4 in.) for all specimens of Test Data 3. Note that 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; and 1 kN = 2.248 kips.

Table 4Analysis results for Test Data 419

Vtest /Vn b, Deep beam fc, MPa mm a/d ID N4200 N42A2 N42B2 N42C2 H4100 H41B2 H41C2 H4200 , % h, v, Vtest , ACI Current Deep beam fc, b, % % kN 318-05 CSA study MPa mm a/d ID 1.00 1.07 1.42 1.34 1.03 1.15 1.13 1.14 0.87 1.06 0.99 0.91 1.18 1.22 1.33 1.41 0.88 1.65 1.86 1.85 0.59 0.67 0.83 0.77 1.12 1.03 1.06 0.88 0.94 1.26 1.20 1.83 1.55 1.53 1.54 1.04 1.20 1.12 1.04 1.22 1.26 1.38 1.46 0.66 1.23 1.38 1.37 1.10 1.07 1.17 1.09 1.25 1.15 1.19 H43A0 H43A1 H43A3 U41A0 U41A1 U41A2 U41A3 U42A2 U42B2 U42C2 U43A0 U43A1 U43A2 U43A3 U45A2 N33A2 N43A2 N53A2 H31A2 H32A2 H33A2 H51A2 H52A2 H53A2 , % h, % v, % Vtest /Vn Vtest , ACI Current kN 318-05 CSA study 0.90 1.09 1.19 1.25 1.14 1.03 1.27 1.28 1.28 1.20 1.18 1.17 1.22 1.30 1.46 1.43 1.48 1.27 1.42 1.15 1.97 1.40 1.24 1.86 1.50 1.19 1.29 0.20 0.88 1.08 1.14 1.20 1.43 0.73 0.90 0.91 0.90 1.19 1.17 1.16 1.20 1.28 1.40 1.38 1.41 1.41 1.58 1.29 1.20 1.15 1.33 1.13 1.23 1.27 1.16 0.23 0.99 1.21 1.28 1.37 1.24 1.44 1.54 1.35 1.35 1.31 1.29 1.28 1.35 1.43 1.57 1.55 1.56 0.97 1.09 0.88 1.62 1.31 1.37 1.51 1.40 1.30 1.28 0.17

23.7 130 0.85 1.56 0.00 0.00 265.2 1.29 23.7 130 0.85 1.56 0.43 0.12 284.1 1.12 23.7 130 0.85 1.56 0.43 0.22 377.0 1.48 23.7 130 0.85 1.56 0.43 0.34 357.5 1.41 49.1 130 0.50 1.56 0.00 0.00 642.2 1.70 49.1 130 0.50 1.56 0.43 0.22 705.9 1.87 49.1 130 0.50 1.56 0.43 0.34 708.5 1.87 49.1 130 0.85 1.56 0.00 0.00 401.1 1.06

50.7 120 1.25 1.29 0.00 0.13 213.6 50.7 120 1.25 1.29 0.23 0.13 260.4 50.7 120 1.25 1.29 0.94 0.13 291.0 73.6 120 0.50 1.29 0.00 0.13 438.0 73.6 120 0.50 1.29 0.23 0.13 541.8 73.6 120 0.50 1.29 0.47 0.13 548.4 73.6 120 0.50 1.29 0.94 0.13 546.6 73.6 120 0.85 1.29 0.47 0.13 417.6 73.6 120 0.85 1.29 0.47 0.24 410.4 73.6 120 0.85 1.29 0.47 0.37 408.0 73.6 120 1.25 1.29 0.00 0.13 291.0 73.6 120 1.25 1.29 0.23 0.13 310.2 73.6 120 1.25 1.29 0.47 0.13 338.4 73.6 120 1.25 1.29 0.94 0.13 333.0 73.6 120 2.00 1.29 0.47 0.13 213.6 23.7 130 1.25 1.56 0.43 0.12 228.2 23.7 130 1.25 1.56 0.43 0.12 254.8 23.7 130 1.25 1.56 0.43 0.12 207.4 49.1 130 0.50 1.56 0.43 0.12 745.6 49.1 130 0.85 1.56 0.43 0.12 529.8 49.1 130 1.25 1.56 0.43 0.12 377.7 49.1 130 0.50 1.56 0.43 0.12 702.0 49.1 130 0.85 1.56 0.43 0.12 567.5 49.1 130 1.25 1.56 0.43 0.12 362.7 Average Coefficient of variation

H43A2(2) 50.7 120 1.25 1.29 0.47 0.13 276.6 H45A2(2) 50.7 120 2.00 1.29 0.46 0.13 165.0

H41A2(1) 49.1 130 0.50 1.56 0.43 0.12 713.1 1.89

H42A2(1) 49.1 130 0.85 1.56 0.43 0.12 488.2 1.29 H42B2(1) 49.1 130 0.85 1.56 0.43 0.22 456.3 1.21 H42C2(1) 49.1 130 0.85 1.56 0.43 0.34 420.6 1.11 H4300 H43B2 H43C2 H4500 H45A2 H45B2 H45C2 H41A0 H41A1 H41A3 49.1 130 1.25 1.56 0.00 0.00 337.4 1.08 49.1 130 1.25 1.56 0.43 0.22 380.9 1.25 49.1 130 1.25 1.56 0.43 0.34 402.4 1.32 49.1 130 2.00 1.56 0.00 0.00 112.5 0.57 49.1 130 2.00 1.56 0.43 0.12 210.6 1.08 49.1 130 2.00 1.56 0.43 0.22 237.3 1.25 49.1 130 2.00 1.56 0.43 0.34 235.3 1.24 50.7 120 0.50 1.29 0.00 0.13 347.4 0.98 50.7 120 0.50 1.29 0.23 0.13 397.8 1.12 50.7 120 0.50 1.29 0.94 0.13 454.8 1.28 H43A2(1) 49.1 130 1.25 1.56 0.43 0.12 347.1 1.14

H41A2(2) 50.7 120 0.50 1.29 0.47 0.13 490.2 1.38 H42A2(2) 50.7 120 0.85 1.29 0.47 0.13 392.4 1.13 H42B2(2) 50.7 120 0.85 1.29 0.47 0.24 360.6 1.04 H42C2(2) 50.7 120 0.85 1.29 0.47 0.37 373.8 1.07

Note: overall height h = 560 mm (22.0 in.) and effective depth d = 500 mm (19.7 in.) for all specimens of Test Data 4. Note that 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; and 1 kN = 2.248 kips.

662

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

Table 5Analysis results for Test Data 527

Vtest/Vn fc, Deep beam ID MPa d, mm a/d ACI-I STM-I STM-H 32 32 28 , % h, % v, % Vtest, ACI f c , Current Deep kN 318-05 CSA study beam ID MPa d, mm a/d 1.41 1.33 1.58 1.36 1.29 1.43 1.48 1.23 1.40 STM-M 28 801 , % h, % v, % 0.1 Vtest/Vn Vtest, ACI Current kN 318-05 CSA study 1277 1.56 1.47 0.08 1.42 1.37 0.05 1.40 1.38 0.08

791 1.16 1.27 0.35 0.31 1357 718 1.27 1.4 0.13 0.31 1134 801 1.14 1.25 0.06 0.31 1286

1.14 1.25 Average

Coefficient of variation

Note: member thickness b = 305 mm (12.0 in.); overall height h = 915 mm (36.0 in.); and shear span a = 915 mm (36.0 in.) for all specimens of Test Data 5. Note that 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; and 1 kN = 2.248 kips.

Table 6Analysis results for Test Data 621

Vtest /Vn Deep fc, b, d, beam ID MPa mm mm a/d A1 A2 A3 A4 B1 B2 B3 , % h, % v, Vtest, ACI Current Deep fc, b, d, % kN 318-05 CSA study beam ID MPa mm mm a/d 1.98 1.87 1.74 1.54 1.72 1.60 1.76 1.45 1.37 1.28 1.13 1.10 1.02 1.01 1.47 1.39 1.30 1.15 1.27 1.19 1.30 B4 HA1 HA3 HB1 HB3 , % h, % Vtest /Vn v, Vtest, ACI Current % kN 318-05 CSA study 459 292 460 1.73 1.18 1.52 2.16 2.06 1.74 0.15 0.99 1.32 1.26 1.08 0.93 1.16 0.14 1.28 1.13 1.29 1.33 1.25 1.28 0.08

22.0 150 370 1.42 2.79 0.1 0.28 251 22.0 150 370 1.42 2.79 0.1 0.28 237 22.0 150 370 1.42 2.79 22.0 150 370 1.42 2.79 221 196

32.4 150 375 0.81 2.04 50.3 100 380 1.43 4.08 50.3 100 380 0.82 4.08 Average Coefficient of variation

50.3 100 380 1.57 4.08 0.15 0.38 265 50.3 100 380 0.90 4.08 0.15 0.67 484

32.4 150 375 0.89 2.04 0.1 0.23 456 32.4 150 375 0.89 2.04 0.1 0.23 426 32.4 150 375 0.81 2.04 468

Note: overall height h = 460 mm (18.1 in.) for all specimens of Test Data 6. Note that 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; and 1 kN = 2.248 kips.

Table 7Analysis results for Test Data 726

Vtest /Vn Deep beam ID f c , a, MPa mm 125 125 125 125 250 250 250 250 375 375 a/d , % v, Vtest , ACI Current % kN 318-05 CSA study 2.08 2.07 2.06 1.97 1.48 1.56 1.61 1.56 1.33 1.46 0.93 0.99 0.96 0.89 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.89 1.14 1.31 1.89 1.88 1.87 1.80 1.39 1.46 1.52 1.45 1.24 1.23 Deep beam ID fc, a, MPa mm a/d , % v, % Vtest /Vn Vtest , ACI kN 318-05 CSA 270 280 290 290 220 190 173 150 105 1.21 1.37 1.33 1.30 1.41 1.38 1.24 1.57 1.31 1.54 0.19 1.10 1.21 1.20 1.18 1.67 1.59 1.43 2.36 2.61 1.27 0.39 Current study 1.11 1.15 1.19 1.19 1.35 1.17 1.07 1.23 1.08 1.38 0.20

A-0.27-2.15 58.8 A-0.27-3.23 51.6 A-0.27-4.30 53.9 A-0.27-5.38 57.3 B-0.54-2.15 56.0 B-0.54-3.23 45.7 B-0.54-4.30 53.9 B-0.54-5.38 53.0 C-0.81-2.15 51.2 C-0.81-3.23 44.0

0.27 1.23 0.48 675 0.27 1.23 0.48 630 0.27 1.23 0.48 640 0.27 1.23 0.48 630 0.54 1.23 0.48 468 0.54 1.23 0.48 445 0.54 1.23 0.48 500 0.54 1.23 0.48 480 0.81 1.23 0.48 403 0.81 1.23 0.48 400

D-1.08-2.15 48.2 500 D-1.08-3.23 44.1 500 D-1.08-4.30 46.8 500 D-1.08-5.38 48.0 500 E-1.62-3.23 50.6 750 E-1.62-4.30 44.6 750 E-1.62-5.38 45.3 750 G-2.70-5.38 42.8 1250

1.08 1.23 0.48 1.08 1.23 0.48 1.08 1.23 0.48 1.08 1.23 0.48 1.62 1.23 0.48 1.62 1.23 0.48 1.62 1.23 0.48 2.7 1.23 0.48

F-2.16-4.30 41.1 1000 2.16 1.23 0.48 Average Coefficient of variation

Note: member thickness b = 110 mm (4.3 in.) and overall height h = 500 mm (19.7 in.) for all specimens of Test Data 7. Note that 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; and 1 kN = 2.248 kips.

Table 8Analysis results for Test Data 825

Deep beam fc, , ID MPa % 1 2 3 4 5 Vtest /Vn Deep v, Vtest , ACI Current beam fc, , % kN 318-05 CSA study ID MPa % 2.62 2.56 2.60 3.23 3.03 1.55 1.50 1.51 2.06 1.91 6 7 8 9 10 Vtest /Vn Deep v , Vtest , ACI Current beam fc, , % kN 318-05 CSA study ID MPa % 2.56 2.52 2.22 2.40 2.56 1.61 1.56 1.35 1.46 1.60 1.58 Vtest /Vn v, Vtest , ACI Current % kN 318-05 CSA study 2.36 2.07 2.56 0.12 1.46 1.27 1.57 0.14

39.0 2.67 2.65 478.6 1.59 41.4 2.67 2.65 489.7 1.54 42.7 2.67 2.65 511.1 1.55 27.5 2.67 2.65 439.9 2.08 28.7 2.67 2.65 426.6 1.93

29.4 2.67 2.65 368.8 1.63 32.1 2.67 2.65 391 33.9 2.67 2.65 359.9 1.38 34.4 2.67 2.65 395.4 1.49 31.0 2.67 2.65 386.6 1.63

11 32.3 2.67 2.65 368.8 1.49 12 33.2 2.67 2.65 330.9 1.30 Average Coefficient of variation 1.60 0.13

Note: member thickness b = 203 mm (8.0 in.); overall height h = 508 mm (20.0 in.); shear span a = 914 mm (36.0 in.); and shear span-depth ratio a/d = 2.15 for all specimens of Test Data 8. Note that 1 MPa = 145.04 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; and 1 kN = 2.248 kips.

study) are compared with the measured capacity of the 214 deep beam test results. The size of this test database and the use of these two code provisions are sufficient to obtain valuable insight into the design and behavior of deep beams from a strut-and-tie perspective. It would be useful to expand this evaluation to include even more test data and other code provisions, such as the CEB-FIP Model Code,3 but this is beyond the scope of the present work. The details of the test ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

n specimens and strength ratios (Vtest/V method ) are presented for each group of test results in Tables 1 through 8 and collectively in Fig. 2. Figure 2(a) and (b) show that the predictions by the strutand-tie model approach of ACI 318-05 and the Canadian code are very conservative and scattered with mean values of 1.77 and 1.64, and coefficients of variation (COVs) of 0.32 and 0.35, respectively. One cause of this extreme conservatism

663

Fig. 3Evaluation and comparison of softening coefficients. COV of 0.18. Given the breadth of the database, these results are considered to be sufficiently good to suggest that the proposal method provides a reliable and safe means of predicting the capacity of deep beams. As previously mentioned, the effect of using different compression softening relationships on the predictive capability of the authors approach was also investigated. For the models proposed by Vecchio and Collins14-16,28 in 1982, 1986, and 1993, the mean strength ratios are 1.42, 1.39, and 1.47 with COVs of 0.19, 0.20, and 0.19. This illustrates that the proposed method is applicable for a range of softening models as is further examined in the following. Fig. 2Ratio of measured-to-calculated strength by different methods. is that the effective depth of the concrete strut is very conservative. The other cause is that the tensile strain that is used to estimate the strength of the diagonal concrete strut in the Canadian code is too large, especially for deep beams with relatively large a/d ratios. It is also observed that the predictions by ACI 318-05 and the Canadian code are quite scattered with respect to concrete strengths. The conservatism decreases as concrete strengths increases in both ACI 318-05 and the Canadian code. It is to be noted that deep beams exhibit abrupt failures due to splitting of the concrete strut when web reinforcement is not sufficient and the concrete strength is higher. The examined code procedures, however, cannot capture these effects. Figure 2(c) shows that the predictions by the proposed method are slightly conservative, but good accuracy is obtained with no significant trend with concrete strengths, amount of web reinforcement, or a/d ratio ranging from 0.27 to 2.7. There was no significant decrease in conservatism with the use of flatter struts down to 17.1 degrees that correspond to a beam with an a/d ratio of 2.7. According to the proposed approach, a limit on the angle between the axes of struts and ties of 25 degrees is not required for the design of deep beams. The mean of the ratio of the measured-tocalculated strength by the proposed method is 1.41 with a 664 Softening coefficient The compressive stress capacity in a strut is taken in most design codes1-3 as the product of a softening coefficient and the compressive cylinder strength of the concrete. The softening coefficient is used to account for the reduction in compressive strength due to transverse tensile straining and the shapes of the true stress fields in the real structure. Several approaches have been proposed for calculating the softening coefficient. A number of researchers have conducted independent test programs and have proposed the constitutive models to determine the degree of the softening effects and the parameters that influence it. The softening coefficients used in the authors proposed method are compared with the coefficients that could be calculated if the constitutive model proposed by Vecchio and Collins14 had been used. The constitutive model proposed by Vecchio and Collins,15 which was based on tests on reinforced concrete panels, uses the Hognestad parabola as the base curve to describe the uniaxial compressive response of concrete. As shown in Eq. (30), the softening parameter in this model is taken as a function of 1, the average principal tensile strain, and 2, the average principal compressive strain. They also formulated a simplified model15 in which the softening parameter is a function of 1 and the strain at peak compressive stress 0, as shown in Eq. (31). ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

1 = ------------------------------1 0.85 0.27 ---2 1 = ----------------------------1 0.8 + 0.34 ---0

(30)

(31)

Vecchio and Collins16 found the softening effect might be more pronounced in high-strength concrete, and proposed a somewhat more complex model for high-strength concrete as follows 1 = -------------------1 + Kc Kf where 1 K c = 0.35 ------- 0.28 2
0.80

(32)

1.0

(33) (34)

K f = 0.1825 f c 1.0 ( f c in MPa) Equation (32) was further simplified as follows16 1 = -------------1 + Kc where 1 K c = 0.27 --- 0.37 0

(35)

(36)

The softening parameters of Eq. (30) through (32) and (35), and the softening coefficient of Eq. (18) with respect to 1 was evaluated and compared with the ACI 318-05 strength reduction factor for struts as shown in Fig. 3. The strength of concrete struts by ACI 318-05 provides reasonable estimates for normal-strength concrete, but the softening coefficients of most high-strength concrete specimens calculated by the proposed method were less than the corresponding ACI 318-05 code coefficient, which is 0.51 in these cases. Consequently, the ACI 318-05 coefficient is considered to become less conservative as the strength of the concrete increases. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ON PRACTICE The capacity of 214 tested deep beams were predicted by the strut-and-tie provisions in two codes-of-practice and by the softened strut-and-tie model proposed by the authors. From a comparison of measured and predicted strengths, the following conclusions can be made: 1. The calculated capacities by the proposed method are both accurate and conservative with little scatter or trends for deep beams over a wide range in concrete strengths, various combinations and amounts of web reinforcements, and values of a/d that ranged from 0.27 to 2.7. The predictions by the proposed method are sufficiently conservative and accurate to conclude that it provides a safe and reliable means of calculating the capacity of deep beams; ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

2. The strut-and-tie model approaches of ACI 318-02 and the Canadian code yielded generally conservative but scattered results. Two main causes of this extreme conservatism are: 1) the difficulty in estimating the effective depth of the top horizontal strut; and 2) the use of large tensile strains in calculating the capacity of the diagonal strut in the case of the CSA code. To provide for more accurate designs, it is recommended to use Eq. (24) to estimate the location of the top node of the direct strut-and-tie model for the design of the deep beams using code provisions. It is also recommended that Eq. (11-23) in the Canadian code should not be used for the deep beams when the inclination of diagonal strut s is less than 25 degrees; 3. The conservatism of STM provisions in ACI 318-05 and the Canadian code decreases as concrete strengths increases. Area reduction factors provide an effective means of accounting for the sudden splitting failures that can occur especially in high-strength concrete deep beams; 4. There was no significant decrease in conservatism with the use of flatter struts down to 17.1 degrees for the proposed approach. And it was also observed for ACI 318-05 that the flatter struts down to 18.6 degrees have little effect on the degree of conservatism; and 5. The strengths of concrete struts in ACI 318-05 provide reasonable estimates for normal-strength concrete. However, the softening coefficients of most high-strength concrete specimens calculated by the proposed method were less than those by ACI 318-05, that is, 0.51. Thus, it becomes less conservative to apply the strut strength provisions of ACI 318-05 in the design of high-strength concrete deep beams. These conclusions are applicable to the design of deep beams by the strut-and-tie method and should be taken into consideration in any future adjustments to code provisions and in the development of design guidelines. Additional analytical and experimental investigations are required for furthering the understanding of the applicability and limitations of the strut-and-tie method for the broad range of the discontinuity regions that can be designed by this method. NOTATION
Ec, Ed = secant moduli of horizontal and diagonal concrete struts Es, Esh, Esv = secant moduli of longitudinal, horizontal, and vertical steel ties Fc, Fd = compressive force in horizontal and diagonal struts Fh, Fv = tensile force in horizontal and vertical ties in web = compressive stress in horizontal and diagonal struts fc , fd fs, fsh, fsv = tensile stress of longitudinal, horizontal, and vertical ties T = tensile force of longitudinal steel tie = experimental failure load and nominal failure strength Vtest, Vn = effective widths of horizontal and diagonal concrete struts wc, wd wp = width of loading plate = softening parameter of compression concrete 1, 2 = principal tensile and compressive strains = compressive strains in horizontal and diagonal struts c, d r = tensile strain of direction perpendicular to diagonal strut s, h, v = tensile strains in longitudinal, horizontal, and vertical ties c1, c2 = area reduction factors for diagonal concrete strut = angle of inclination of diagonal strut with respect to horizontal axis h, v = ratio of horizontal and vertical web reinforcement = softening coefficient of concrete strut

REFERENCES
1. AASHTO, AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 2004. 2. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2005, 430 pp.

665

3. CEB-FIP, CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures, Comite EuroInternational du Beton, Federation International de la Precontrainte, 1993. 4. CSA Committee A23.3, Design of Concrete Structures: Structures (Design)A National Standard of Canada, Canadian Standards Association, 1994. 5. Hillerborg, A., Strip Method of Design, E&FN Spon, London, UK, 1975. 6. Hwang, S.-J.; Lu, W.-Y.; and Lee, H.-J., Shear Strength Prediction for Deep Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 3, May-June 2000, pp. 367-376. 7. Hwang, S.-J.; Lu, W.-Y.; and Lee, H.-J., Shear Strength Prediction for Reinforced Concrete Corbels, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97. No. 4, July-Aug. 2000, pp. 543-552. 8. Hwang, S.-J.; Fang, W.-H.; Lee, H.-J.; and Yu, H.-W., Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strength of Squat Walls, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 1, 2001, pp. 43-50. 9. Hwang, S.-J., and Lee, H.-J., Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1999, pp. 846-858. 10. Hwang, S.-J., and Lee, H.-J., Analytical Model for Predicting Shear Strengths of Interior Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 2000, pp. 34-44. 11. Schfer, K., Strut-and-Tie Models for the Design of Structural Concrete, Notes from Workshop, Department of Civil Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan, 140 pp. 12. Vecchio, F. J., Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Membranes, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1989, pp. 26-35. 13. Hsu, T. T. C., and Zhang, L. X. B., Nonlinear Analysis of Membrane Elements by Fixed-Angle Softened-Truss Model, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1997, pp. 483-492. 14. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., Response of Reinforced Concrete to In-Plane Shear and Normal Stresses, Report No. 82-03, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, 1982. 15. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., Modified Compression Field Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.

16. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., Compression Response of Cracked Reinforced Concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 119, No. 12, 1993, pp. 3590-3610. 17. Foster, S. J., and Gilbert, R. I., The Design of Nonflexural Members with Normal and High-Strength Concretes, ACI Structural Journal, V. 93, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1996, pp. 3-10. 18. Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, 1992, 744 pp. 19. Oh, J. K., and Shin, S. W., Shear Strength of Reinforced HighStrength Concrete Deep Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 164-173. 20. Rogowsky, D. M.; MacGregor, J. G.; and Ong, S. Y., Tests of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 4, July-Aug. 1986, pp. 614-623. 21. Quintero-Febres, C. G.; Parra-Montesinos, G.; and Wight, J. K., Strength of Struts in Deep Concrete Members Designed Using Strutand-Tie Method, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-Aug. 2006, pp. 577-586. 22. Kong, F. K.; Robins, P. J.; and Cole, D. F., Web Reinforcement Effects on Deep Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 67, No. 12, Dec. 1970, pp. 1010-1017. 23. Clark, A. P., Diagonal Tension in Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 48, No. 10, Oct. 1951, pp. 145-156. 24. Smith, K. N., and Vantsiotis, A. S., Shear Strength of Deep Beams, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 3, May-June 1982, pp. 201-213. 25. Anderson, N. S., and Ramirez, J. A., Detailing of Stirrup Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 1989, pp. 507-515. 26. Tan, K. H.; Kong, F. K.; Teng, S.; and Guan, L., High-Strength Concrete Deep Beams with Effective Span and Shear Span Variations, ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-Aug. 1995, pp. 395-405. 27. Aguilar, G.; Matamoros, A. B.; Parra-Montesinos, G.; Ramirez, J. A.; and Wight, J. K., Experimental Evaluation of Design Procedures for Shear Strength of Deep Reinforced Concrete Beams, ACI Structural Journal, V. 99. No. 4, July-Aug. 2002, pp. 539-548. 28. Vecchio, F. J., and Aspiotis, J., Response of High-Strength Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Structural Journal, V. 91, No. 4, JulyAug. 1994, pp. 423-433.

666

ACI Structural Journal/November-December 2007

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.