Behaviour and Modeling of Deep Beams With Low Shear Span-To-Depth Ratios

NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Behaviour and Modeling of Deep Beams

with Low Shear Span-to-Depth Ratios
by
Zhen Yu Li
August, 2003
Department o f Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics

McGill University
Montreal, Quebec
Canada
A thesis submitted to the Faculty o f Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment
o f the Requirements for the degree o f Master o f Engineering
Zhen Yu Li, 2003
1*1
Library and
Archives Canada
Bibliotheque et
Archives Canada
Published Heritage
Branch
Direction du
Patrimoine de I'edition
395 W ellington S treet

Ottaw a ON K1A 0N4
C an ad a
395, rue Wellington

O ttaw a ON K1A 0N4
C an a d a
Your file Votre reference
ISBN: 0-612-98545-8
Our file Notre reference
ISBN: 0-612-98545-8
NOTICE:
The author has granted a non
exclusive license allowing Library
and Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distribute and sell theses
worldwide, for commercial or non
commercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.
AVIS:
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive
permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter,
distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans
le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres,
sur support microforme, papier, electronique
et/ou autres formats.
The author retains copyright

ownership and moral rights in
this thesis. Neither the thesis
nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur

et des droits moraux qui protege cette these.
Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de
celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.
In compliance with the Canadian

Privacy Act some supporting
forms may have been removed
from this thesis.
Conformement a la loi canadienne

sur la protection de la vie privee,
quelques formulaires secondaires
ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included

in the document page count,
their removal does not represent
any loss of content from the
thesis.
Bien que ces formulaires

aient inclus dans la pagination,
il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.
i*i
Canada
To my parents
Behaviour and Modeling of Deep Beams

with Low Shear Span-to-Depth Ratios
ABSTRACT
The purpose o f this research program was to study the bahaviour o f full-scale deep beams
with realistic reinforcement details. In the overall research program, a total o f eight deep
beams were tested. A companion study by Li (2003) presents the results o f four o f these
beams. This research examines the other four beams, two without uniformly distributed
crack
control
reinforcement
and
two
with
distributed
horizontal
and
vertical
reinforcement. The specimens dimensions were 2000 mm long and 400 mm thick, with
two specimens having heights o f 1160 mm and the other two heights o f 1840 mm. The
specimens were loaded with a central loading plate 300 mm long and 400 mm wide. The
end bearing plates were 250 mm long and 400 mm wide. All specimens contained seven
15M bars forming the main tension tie reinforcement.
The test results provided information on the influence o f the uniformly distributed
reinforcement and the crack and strain development up to failure. The ductility o f the
specimens containing only the main tension ties was limited due to the formation o f
splitting cracks along the anchorages o f the main tension ties during the later stages o f
testing. The uniformly distributed reinforcement provided additional tension ties that
increased the capacity and the ductility. Strut-and-tie models were developed to predict
the capacities. The FIP Recommendations (FIP 1996) were used to determine the
contributions o f the two major mechanisms, direct strut action and indirect strut action.
This approach gave very conservative strength predictions. More refined strut-and-tie
models were developed for the specimens with uniformly distributed reinforcement.
These refined models gave more accurate predictions o f the capacities o f the deep beams.
Comportements et modelisation de poutres profondes

ayant un faible rapport portee I hauteur
RESUME
Le but de ce program m e de recherche etait d etudier le com portem ent de poutres
profondes pleines grandeurs ayant un detail darm ature realiste.
En tout, huit poutres
profondes furent testees dans le cadre de cette recherche. Q uatre de ces resultats sont
presentes par Li (2 0 0 3 ) dans une recherche similaire.
La presente etude exam ine les
quatre autres specim ens, done deux nont pas d arm ature uniformement distribute et
deux qui sont arm es avec des aciers verticaux et horizontaux.
Les specim ens etaient
longs de 2 0 0 0 mm et avaient une epaisseur de 4 0 0 mm et deux d entre eux etaient

hauts de 1160 mm et les deux derniers avaient une hauteur de 1840 mm.
Les poutres
etaient chargees a Iaide d une plaque centrale de chargem ent m esurant 2 50 mm par
4 0 0 mm. Tous les specim ens disposaient de sept barres dacier 15M form ant Iarm ature
de tension.
Les resultats ont permis d acquerir des informations sur in flu e n c e de Iuniformite des
arm atures et du developpem ent des fissures et des deformations avant rupture.
La
ductilite des specim ens ayant seulem ent Iarm ature de tension etait limitee due a la
formation de lignes de rupture le long des ancrages de Iarm ature de tension qui se
developpa vers la fin des essais. Le fait de placer des aciers uniform em ent distribues a
fournit plus de resistance en tension ce qui augm enta la capacite totale et la ductilite de
ces poutres.
Des m odeles de bielles-et-tirants furent developpes afin de predire les
capacites. Les recom m andations du FIP (FIP 1996) ont ete utilisees pour determ iner la
contribution de deux m ecanism es m a je u re s : Taction direct des bielles et Taction
indirecte des bielles.
resistance.
C ette approche donna des predictions tres conservatrices sur la
Des modeles raffines de bielles-et-tirants ont aussi ete developpes pour les
specim ens ayant des aciers verticaux et horizontaux.
Ces derniers ont donnes des
predictions plus pres de la realite concernant la resistance des poutres profondes.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express his gratitude to Professor Denis Mitchell for his skillful
guidance, encouragement and patience throughout this research programme. Thanks are
also given to Dr. William Cook for his invaluable support and assistance and for his
ability to keep things running so smoothly.
The completion o f this research would not have been possible without the patience and
valuable help o f the technical staff in the Jamieson Structures laboratory at McGill
University. The assistance o f Ron Sheppard, Marek Przykorski, John Bartczak and
Damon Kiperchuk as well as the cheerful and enthusiastic aid o f Katherine Lai, Claudia
Correa, Ding Li and Jian Zhou is greatly appreciated. The French translation o f the
abstract by Felix A.Boudreaults is also greatly appreciated.
Gratitude is also extended to the following people who have aided towards the
completion o f this research: Professor Colin Rogers, Professor Yixin Shao, Ann Bless,
Sandy Shewchuk-Boyd, and Franca Della Rovere.
Finally the author would like to thank his wife, Ning Ning Liu for her moral support,
constant encouragement, understanding, endurance and love throughout his stay at
McGill University.
Zhen Yu Li
August 2003.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A b stra ct...................................................................................................................................i
R esum e....................................................................................................................................ii
A cknowledgem ents............................................................................................................... iii
List o f Figures ........................................................................................................................ vi
List o f Tables ......................................................................................................................... ix
List o f sym bols........................................................................................................................ x
Chapter 1 Introduction and Literature Review ................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Disturbed R egion s........................................................................................... 1
1.3 Previous Research on Strut-and-Tie Models .............................................2
1.4 FIP Recommendation and Refined Strut-and-Tie M o d els........................ 7
1.5 Research Objectives......................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2 Description o f Test Specim ens.......................................................................... 18

2.1 Details o f Specim ens........................................................................................18
2.2 Material P roperties...........................................................................................20
2.2.1 Concrete ................................................................................................... 20
2.2.2 Reinforcing S te e l..................................................................................... 21
2.3 Test Setup and Instrum entation...................................................................... 22
2.4 Testing Procedure ............................................................................................23
Chapter 3 Experimental Results
............................................................................. 35
3.1 Specimen B -3 N ................................................................................................ 35

3.2 Specimen B -3 S ................................................................................................. 45
3.3 Specimen B -4 N ................................................................................................ 57
3.4 Specimen B -4 S ................................................................................................. 6 6
iv
Chapter 4 Analyses and Comparison o f R esu lts.................................................................78

4.1 Simple Strut-and-Tie Models for Deep Beam B-3N & 4N ..................78
4.2 Predictions Using 1996 FIP Recommendations for Deep Beam B-3S
..............................................................................................................................79
4.3 Refined Strut-and-Tie Model for B-3S ....................................................80
4.4 Refined Strut-and-Tie Model for B-4S ....................................................82
Chapter 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 89
R eferences................................................................................................................................90
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1
Examples o f disturbed regions.................................................................................... 10
1.2
A simple strut-and-tie model for deep beams............................................................11
1.3
Compressive strength o f diagonally cracked concrete, as a function o f the

Principal tensile strain, s i ........................................................................................... 12
1.4
Compressive strength o f strut, as a function o f the angle o f crossing tension tie

........................................................................................................................................13
1.5
Use o f strut-and-tie model and sectional model for prediction o f series o f beams.
........................................................................................................................................14
1. 6
Failure o f simply supported deep beams....................................................................15
1.7
Deep beam with transverse stirrups, tested by Uribe and Alcocer......................... 16
1.8
Strut-and-tie model for deep beam tested by Uribe and Alcocer..........................17
2.1
Overall view o f specimens.......................................................................................... 24
2.2
Details o f Specimen B-3S............................................................................................25
2.3
Details o f Specimen B-4S........................................................................................... 26
2.4
Details o f Specimen B-3N & 4 N ............................................................................... 27
2.5
Representative concrete compressive stress-strain curves...................................... 28
2.6
Measured concrete shrinkage strains......................................................................... 28
2.7
Stress-strain curves for the 10M bars.........................................................................29
2.8
Stress-strain curves for the 15M bars.........................................................................29
2.9
Specimen B-4S under the MTS testing machine.................................................... 30
2.10
Details o f bearing and loading devices...................................................................... 31
2.11
LVDT locations for specimen B-3S & 3N................................................................32
2.12
Strain gauge locations and crack measurement lines for specimen B-3N
32
2.13
Strain gauge locations and crack measurement lines for specimen B -3S
33
2.14
LVDT locations for specimen B-4S & 4N............................................................. 33
2.15
Strain gauge locations and crack measurement lines for specimen B-4N
34
2.16
Strain gauge locations and crack measurement lines for specimen B-4S
34
3.1
Load-deflection response o f Specimen B -3N .......................................................... 38
vi
3.2
Strains in main tension tie o f Specimen B-3N, determined from strain readings
.............................................................................................................................................39
3.3
Longitudinal strains from LVDTs at the level o f main tension tie o f Specimen
B-3N..............................................................................................................................40
3.4
Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-3N.......................................... 41
3.5
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3N at first yielding o f main tension tie
3.6
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3N at general yielding o f main tension tie .. 43
3.7
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3N at peak load.................................................44
3.8
Load-deflection response o f Specimen B-3S.......................................................... 48
3.9
Strains in main tension tie o f Specimen B-3S, determined from strain readings.
42
...................................................................................................................................... 49
3.10
Strains in vertical distributed reinforcement o f specimen B-3S, determined from

strain readings.............................................................................................................. 50
3.11
Rosette strain responses in Specimen B-3S............................................................. 51
3.12
Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-3S...........................................52
3.13
B-3S..........................................................
53
3.14
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3S at first yielding o f main tension tie...........54
3.15
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3S at general yielding o f main tension t i e ... 55
3.16
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3S at peak load..................................................56
3.17
Load-deflection response o f Specimen B-4N..........................................................59
3.18
Strains in main tension tie o f Specimen B-4N, determined from strain readings.
60
3.19
Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-4N.......................................... 61
3.20
B-4N............................................................................................................................... 62
3.21
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-4N at first yielding o f main tension tie
3.22
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-4N at general yielding o f main tension tie... 64
3.23
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-4N at peak load.................................................65
3.24
Load-deflection response o f Specimen B-4S.......................................................... 70
3.25
Strains in main tension tie o f Specimen B-4S, determined from strain readings.
vii
63
...................................................................................................................................... 71
3.26
Strains in vertical distributed reinforcement o f specimen B-4S, determined from

strain readings........................................................................................................ 72
3.27
Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-4S........................................... 73
3.28
B-4S.........................................................................................................................74
3.29
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-4S at first yielding o f main tension tie
75
3.30
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-4S at general yielding o f main tension tie ... 76
3.31
Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-4S at peak load................................................... 77
4.1
Simple strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-3N....................................................... 84
4.2
Simple strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-4N....................................................... 84
4.3
Strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-3S using FIP Recommendations (1996).

.......................................................................................................................................85
4.4
FIP model for Specimen B-3S assuming strain hardening and spreading o f
yielding in main tension tie.................................................................................. 8 6
4.5
Refined strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-3S.....................................................87
4.6
Refined strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-3S assuming strain hardening and
spreading o f yielding in main tension tie........................................................... 8 8
4.7
Refined strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-4S.................................................... 8 8
viii
LIST OF TABLES
1.1 Effective stress levels in struts......................................................................................... 4

2.1 Concrete mix proportions................................................................................................. 20
2.2 Concrete properties..................................................................................................
21
2.3 Reinforcing steel properties..............................................................................................22

3.1 Key load stages for
Specimen B-3S.............................................................................37
3.2 Key load stages for Specimen B -3N .............................................................................47

3.3 Key load stages for
Specimen B-4S............................................................................. 58
3.4 Key load stages for Specimen B -4N ............................................................................. 67

4.1 Comparison between the prediction and testing results..............................................83
ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS
shear span
aw
effective length o f vertical stirrups
As
area o f reinforcing steel
width o f beams
forces in compression strut
distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis
distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid o f main tension reinforcement
db
nominal diameter o f bar, wire or prestressing strand
Ec
modulus o f elasticity o f concrete
Es
modulus o f elasticity o f reinforcing steel
f 2max
limiting compressive stress o f diagonally cracked concrete
fc
concrete stress
f c'
specified compressive strength o f concrete
f cr
concrete cracking stress
f cu
limiting compressive stress in concrete compression strut
fr
modulus o f rupture o f concrete
f sp
splitting tensile strength o f concrete
fuit
Ultimate tensile strength o f reinforcement
fy
specified yield strength o f nonprestressed reinforcement
f yt
specified yield strength o f transverse reinforcement
overall depth o f beams
ki
reinforcing bar location factor in development length expression
k2
reinforcement coating factor in development length expression
k3
concrete density factor in development length expression
k4
bar size factor in development length expression
lb
length o f bearing
Id
development length o f reinforcement
Idb
basic development length
Idh
development length o f standard hook in tension, measured from critical section to
outside end o f hook (straight embedment length between critical section and start o f
hook plus radius o f bend and one bar diameter)
n
number o f bars being developed along the potential plane o f bond splitting
total applied load
spacing o f reinforcement parallel to axis o f the member
tension force in reinforcement
shear force at section
effective lever arm at section
sc
compressive strain
gcr
strain in concrete at cracking
Erupt
rupture strain o f reinforcement
es
strain in reinforcing steel
Esh
strain o f reinforcement at strain hardening
ex
horizontal tensile strain
yield strain o f reinforcement
Et
principal tensile strain
e2
principal compressive strain
angle o f compressive strut from horizontal direction
<j)c
resistance factor for concrete
<j)s
resistance factor for reinforcement
0 2
angle o f minimum principal strain
V2
smallest angle between the strut and the tension tie crossing the strut
factor considering the influence o f high-strength concrete, equal to
0.55 + 1.25/
reinforcement ratio o f primary tension reinforcement, represented as As/bd
yxy
shear strain
XI
Chapter 1
Introduction and Literature Review
1.1 Introduction
Strut-and-tie models have become useful tools to design regions o f both reinforced and
prestressed concrete structures. It provides a simple tool for the analysis o f disturbed
regions. Strut-and-tie model design procedures were first codified in the Canadian
Standards Association Standard A23.3 in 1984 (CSA 1984). The United States has just
recently adopted this design method (American Concrete Institution Code, the year 2002).
The main advantage o f this method is that designers can visualize the flow o f stresses.
Traditional engineering beam theory is based on the assumption that plane sections may
remain plane, but it does model how the forces were introduced into the members. This
chapter first presents the definition and behaviour o f disturbed regions, and then provides
a brief historical review o f the development o f strut-and-tie models. Finally this chapter
presents recent developments o f the 1996 FIP Recommendation (FIP 1996) and the use o f
refined strut-and-tie models. Information on the developments o f strut-and-tie models is
given in the publication Recent Approaches to Shear Design o f Structural Concrete
(ASCE-ACI 1998) and in the ACI Special Publication Experimental Verification o f
Strut-and-Tie Models (ACI 2002).
1.2 Disturbed Regions
Regions o f concrete members in which the traditional engineering beam theory is

appropriate (in other words, the plane section remains plane and the shear stress can be
assumed to be uniform over the nominal shear area) are sometimes referred to as Bregions (where B represents beam or Bernoulli). Their internal state o f stress complies
with the Bernoulli hypothesis and satisfies equilibrium with the sectional forces (bending
and torsional moments, shear and axial force). On the other hand, the regions adjacent to
concentrated loads, supports or abrupt changes in cross section are so-called Disturbed
1
Regions or D-regions (where D represents discontinuity, disturbance or detail etc.). Their

strain distribution is significantly non-linear due to a complex internal flow o f stresses.
Several examples o f disturbed regions are shown in Fig 1.1 where dashed lines represent
the flow o f compressive stresses and solid lines represent the tensile ties. D-regions are
indicated by shaded areas. Figure 1.1 also shows a deep beam subjected to concentrated
loading. Because o f the complex flow o f stresses from the top plate to the bottom plates,
the entire deep beam is a disturbed region.
1.3 Previous Research on Strut-and-Tie Models

In 1899, Ritter suggested truss models to analyze and design reinforced concrete beams.
In the early 1920s, Morsch introduced truss models for torsion analysis. These early truss
models consist o f compression chords, tension chords and diagonal compressive struts,
assumed to be inclined at 45 to the longitudinal direction. These truss models established
the basis o f code development in Europe and North America for design o f conventional
reinforced concrete beams.
Truss models have gained increased popularity in the last two decades for the design o f
disturbed regions. Strut-and-tie models are the most appropriate method for the design o f
disturbed regions. The essential steps in design using strut-and-tie models are to visualize
the flow o f internal stress and to establish properly equilibrated models. Experience is
necessary to determine the more efficient strut-and-tie models for different situations.
Under most circumstances, for any given structures, many strut-and-tie models may
feasible so that there is not a unique solution. Schlaich and Shafer (1984) and Schlaich et
al. (1997) suggested choosing a strut-and-tie model after carrying out an elastic analysis.
They recommend that the angle o f the compression diagonals be within 15 o f the
angles o f the resultant o f the compressive stresses obtained from a linear elastic analysis
when choosing the geometry o f the ideal truss model.
In developing a simple strut-and-tie model it is necessary to first idealize the flow o f

internal forces. In disturbed regions, high unidirectional compressive stresses may be
modeled as compressive struts, and tension ties are used to idealize the principal tension
reinforcement. For a deep beam, the loads are assumed to be transferred to the supports
by compressive concrete struts, requiring a tension tie between supports to satisfy
equilibrium. The internal resisting mechanism can be represented by a strut-and-tie
model, as shown in Fig 1.2.
There has been a significant amount o f research to investigate the limiting stresses in
concrete compressive struts and the influence o f anchorage details on the geometry o f
these struts. Thurliman et al. (1983) and Marti (1985) draw the conclusion that the
compressive stress in the struts be not more than 0.60 f c', and Ramirez and Green (1991)
suggested the limiting compressive stress o f 2 . 4 9 (in MPa units). Schlaich et al.
(1987) and MacGregor (1997) proposed the effective stress level based upon different
conditions o f struts, shown in Table 1.1.
Vecchio and Collins (1986) suggested an equation for limiting compressive stresses for
the modified compression field theory that considered the strain softening o f diagonally
cracked concrete (see Fig 1.3). The limiting compressive stress,/}:, is calculated as:
fc
f j n tax
0 .8
where: f c'
i
+ 170s,
fc
concrete compressive strength.
principal tensile strain where:
= ex + {sx + s 2)cot2 0
where: ex
2
(1-1)
( 1.2 )
= horizontal tensile strain,

= principal compressive strain,
= angle between the principal compressive strain and horizontal direction.
3
Table 1.1 Effective stress levels in stmts (Schlaich et al. 1987 and
MacGregor 1997)
Effective
Proposed
Stress Level
by
Conditions of Strut
Undisturbed and uniaxial state o f compressive stress that
0.80 f c'
may exist for prismatic struts
Tensile strains and /or reinforcement perpendicular to the
axis o f the strut may cause cracking parallel to the strut
0 .6 8
f c'
Schlaich et
with normal crack width
al.
Tensile strains and /or reinforcement at skew angles to the

axis o f the strut may cause skew cracking with normal
0.51 f c
(1987)
crack width
Skew cracks with extraordinary crack width (expected if
modeling o f the struts departs significantly from the theory
0.34 f c
o f elasticitys flow o f internal stresses)

Uncracked uniaxially stressed struts o f fields
1 .0
v2/ c'(a)
Struts cracked longitudinally due to bottle-shaped stress

fields with sufficient transverse reinforcement
0.80 v2/ c'(a)

MacGregor
Struts cracked longitudinally due to bottle-shaped stress

0.65 v2/ c'(a)
fields without transverse reinforcement

Struts in cracked zone with transverse tensions from
0.60 v^/c'(a)
transverse reinforcement
(a) where v 2 =0.55 + 1.25
(1997)
The CSA Standard A23.3 Design o f Concrete Structures for Buildings (1984, 1994),
Ontario Highway Bridge Design Code (CSA 1991) the Canadian Highway Bridge Design
Code (CHBDC
2000)
and the American Association o f State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO 1993) have adopted the strut-and-tie methods

developed by Collins and Mitchell (1986, 1987). The expressions for the limiting
concrete compressive stress in the struts are given below:
^ 0-85 f'c
fcu = ----Jcu 0.8 + 170^
Where: f
cu
fc
limiting compressive stress in the strut,
concrete cylinder strength,
principal tensile strain, where.
where:
62
(1.3)
=fs
+ f 2) c ot 20 s
(1-4)
principal compressive strain in the strut, taken as 0 .0
0 2
strain in the tension tie crossing the strut.

Bs
smallest angle between the strut and the tension tie crossing the strut.
Figure 1.4 shows the variation o f the compressive strength f
cu
as a function o f the angle,
6S, between the strut and the tension tie crossing the strut (Collins and Mitchell 1987).
The Canadian Standards Association, Design o f Concrete Structures for Buildings

(CSA 1984) provides the following limitations for the compressive stresses in the nodal
zones o f strut-and-tie models (Collins and Mitchell 1986):
0 .8 5 0 ,// for nodes bounded by compressive struts and bearing areas only (CCC nodes).
0.75a /c for nodes with only one direction tension tie is anchored (CCT nodes).
0.60 0 /c ' for nodes where tension ties are anchored in more than one direction (CTT
nodes).
Figure 1.5 shows the shear strength o f a simply supported reinforced concrete beam under
two point loading, as a function o f shear span-to-depth ratio, a/d. The beams in this series
had been tested by Kani in the 1960s and were published by Kani et al in 1979. The
tested
beams
contained
only
horizontal
main
tension
tie
without
distributed
reinforcement. It can be easily visualized that the sectional model is appropriate when the
shear span-to-depth ratio is 2.5 or higher. The same amount o f tensile reinforcement and
different size o f bearing plates for each beam were used. This figure shows that the strutand-tie model provides more accurate predictions for shear span-to-depth ratios, a/d o f
less than about 2.5.
Numerous studies have investigated the stress distributions in deep members as a function
o f the shear span-to-depth ratio, a/d. For example, the size o f the bearing plates may
affect the principal stresses significantly and is very critical in the immediate vicinity o f
supports and the anchorage conditions o f the tensile reinforcement is another important
aspect for the design o f deep beams. Leonhardt and Walther (1966) carried out
experiments on simply supported deep beams at University o f Stuttgart. The applied loads
were introduced from either the top surface or a bottom ledge o f the specimen to
investigate top and bottom loading effects. When a uniformly distributed load was
applied to the top surface o f the beam (see Fig 1.6 (a)) the load path consisted mainly o f
compressive stresses fanning into the supports. A minimum reinforcement ratio o f 0.2 %
in both directions was concluded to be adequate (Park and Paulay 1975). When the load
was applied through a bottom ledge o f the beam (see Fig 1. 6 (b)), the total applied load
was transferred by means o f vertical stirrups into the compressive area o f the beam.
Therefore, a vertical stirrups amount must be provided to satisfy the force requirement as
well as to control cracks. For this test series the thickness o f the deep beams was only 200
mm and small diameter bars with unusual anchorage details were used for the main
tension ties.
In order to design disturbed regions more accurately, elastic finite element analysis may
be used to determine the flow o f stresses inside the concrete member prior to cracking,
however it is not appropriate to predict for the cracked concrete member due to the
significant redistribution o f stresses after cracking. Non-linear finite element analysis can
be used to predict the full response including the post-cracking response o f reinforced
concrete members. The computer program, FIELDS, was developed (Cook and Mitchell
1988) using two-dimensional non-linear finite elements and the compression field theory
(Vecchio and Collins 1986). Program FIELDS, along with a series o f tests on disturbed
regions (Cook and Mitchell 1988) was used to provide additional guidance during the
development o f the strut-and-tie design provisions o f the 1984 CSA Standard (CSA
1984).
1.4 FIP Recommendations and Refined Strut-and-Tie Models
Design approaches using strut-and-tie models have been specified in the CSA Standards
(1984, 1994) and in Appendix A o f the ACI Code (2002). While these codes do not
provide specific guidelines on suitable strut-and-tie models for different situations, the
FIP Recommendations (FIP 1996) provide such guidance. For deep beams, the
Recommendations assume that the load is transferred from the loading plate to supports
by both a direct strut mechanism and an indirect strut mechanism. The direct strut
mechanism means that part o f the load is transferred to the support directly through an
inclined strut, while the indirect strut mechanism assumes that the remainder is carried by
stirrups in a truss with two inclined struts at each beam end. In accordance with the 1996
FIP Recommendations, the part o f the total load transferred by indirect strut mechanism is
based on the shear span-to-intemal lever arm ratio, a/z, as given by 1/3 (2a/z-l). For using
this equation, the shear span is taken as the distance between the centres o f the loading
and support bearing plates.
Uribe and Alcocer (Mitchell et al 2001) carried out an experiment on a deep beam
containing
transverse
reinforcement,
using
design
approach
o f the
1996
FIP
Recommendations to predict the maximum load. Figure 1.7 shows Specimen MT that is
simply supported on two bearing plates. The specimen had vertical stirrups placed over
the bearing nodal zone on one end with the other without this reinforcement in order to
investigate the effect o f confinement along the bar anchorage. The beam was intentionally
7
designed to avoid a flexure failure o f the main tension tie so that it became possible to
impose large shear force demands. The strut-and-tie model was established in accordance
with the 1996 FIP Recommendations. It was assumed that stirrup yielding controlled the
failure mode. From the testing results, yielding was recorded in nearly all o f the stirrups
at the peak load. This strut-and-tie model, shown in Fig. 1.8, gave a conservative
prediction because the contribution o f horizontally distributed reinforcement was not
considered.
The simple strut-and-tie model is based upon the assumption that the compressive strut
may be represented by straight lines from the loading bearing plate to the support bearing
plates directly,
and it neglects the contribution o f any uniformly distributed
reinforcement. As a result, this simply strut-and-tie model usually gives conservative

capacity predictions. A more refined model was developed so as to provide a more
accurate estimate o f the failure load. The refined strut-and-tie model accounts for not only
the main tension tie reinforcement but also the uniformly distributed reinforcement
normally provided for crack control. Mitchell et al. (2001) adopted refined strut-and-tie
model to predict the capacities o f deep beams tested by Leonhardt and Walther (1966).
This refined model utilized the additional horizontal reinforcement in the tension zone
and provided more accurate predicted capacities compared with the simple strut-and-tie
model. This refined model gave conservative predictions. The CSA Standard A23.3-94
and the 1996 FIP Recommendations all require that the uniformly distributed
reinforcement should be provided for crack control at service load levels.
1.5 Research Objectives
This research program is part o f a comprehensive study conducted at McGill University

to investigate the behaviour o f deep beams with various shear span-to-depth ratios and to
model the load transferring system using strut-and-tie models. This thesis reports on four
o f a total o f eight full-scale deep beams that were constructed and tested under
concentrated loading. Li (2003) reported on the other four specimens.
The objectives o f this research programme are:

1
. to study the complete behaviour o f full-scale reinforced concrete deep beams,
. to compare the predicted responses using simple strut-and-tie models, strut-and-tie

models using 1996 FIP Recommendations and refined strut-and-tie models,
3. to investigate the crushing concrete stress and the role o f anchorage o f the main
tension tie on the behaviour,
4. to investigate the influence o f crack control reinforcement for various span-todepth ratios.
Deep Beam
Corbel
----- ----------
Beam with opening
i
y
Footing
Beam with Dapped Ends

Figure 1.1 Examples of disturbed regions
(Adapted from CAC Handbook (CAC 1995))
10
Tension tie
Figure 1.2 A simple strut-and-tie model for deep beams

(Adapted from on Collins and Mitchell (1986) and CAC (1995)
li
r
^2niux
(a) Average concrete compressive s tre s s ,^ , from strains e, and e2
1.2
0.8
~
0.6
0.4
0.2
(b) Reduction in compressive strength with increasing values of e,
Figure 1.3 Compressive strength of diagonally cracked concrete,

as a function o f the principal tensile strain, 6i
(Taken from Vecchio and Collins 1986)
12
Figure 1.4 Compressive strength of strut, as a function of the angle of

crossing tension tie (Collins and Mitchell 1986)
13
o 152 x 76 x 9.5 mm plate

152 x 152 x 25 mm plate
-tj> 152 x 229 x 51 mm plate
0 .2 5 -
0 .2 0 24 in
(610 mm)
/ / = 27.2 MPa
0.15
fy = 372 MPa
bdf:
max. agg. = 19 mm
d = 538 mm
b = 155 mm
A, = 2277 mm2
0.1 0 -
0.05
76 .7 4 ,7 5
sectional model
strut-and-tie model
Figure 1.5 Use o f strut-and-tie model and sectional model for prediction of
series o f beams (taken from Collins and Mitchell 1991)
14
(a) Load was introduced at top surface
(b)
Load was introduced at bottom ledge
Figure 1.6 Failure of simply supported deep beams (Leonhardt and Walther
1966).
15
'4 No.
6 0 200 {No. 4 stirrups)
-U No. 4
-2 No. 8
fi No. 4 250
.30
200
305
250
250
305
220
100
jTHTjr.
7 0 l4 (J
*2 No.
5 No.
U N ' 8
.4 No. 8
^
-5 No.
. 4 No. B-
4 No. 8.
NO. 8^ 6 No. 4
- 6 No. 4
, - 6 No. 4-
1200
-N o . 4
U Jo . 4 -
No- 8
2 No. 8 + 3 No. 8
3 No. {
- 5 No. 8
- 5 No. J
- 5 No. 8-
-350
L350
A - A
C - C'
D im cn sio n s in mm
Figure 1.7 Deep beam with transverse stirrups, tested by Uribe and
Alcocer (Mitchell et al. 2001)
16
.*00.
119
1400
(a) Strut-and-tie model
140
: : 55
4 0 9 kN
1110
4 0 9 kN
35
396 kN
(b) Direct strut mechanism
762 kN
MH
211
646,5 kN
646.5 h i "
908
/ \ft
m /
p
646.5: kN
762 kN
(c) Indirect truss mechanism
Figure 1.8 Strut-and-tie model for deep beam

tested by Uribe and Alcocer (Mitchell et al. 2001)
17
Reproduced with permission o f the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 2
Description of Test Specimens
Eight full-scale deep beams were constructed and tested in order to study their complete
responses as part o f a testing program. This thesis reports on four o f these beams, the
other four beams are reported by Ding Li (2003). Their dimensions have been chosen in
order to provide experimental evidence o f the change in response as the beams become
deeper. These deep beams were designed using the strut-and-tie approach o f the CSA
Standard A23.3-94 (CSA 1994) and the 1996 FIP Recommendations (FIP 1996). The bar
size and spacing o f the uniformly distributed horizontal and vertical reinforcement was
chosen to satisfy the provisions o f Clause 11.5.5 o f CSA A23.3-94, that states that the
ratio o f reinforcement area to gross concrete area shall not less than 0.002 in each
direction in order to satisfy the minimum reinforcement ratio requirements for crack
control.
2.1 Details of Specimens
Deep beam specimens (B-1S & IN, B-2S & 2N, B-3S & 3N and B-4S & 4N) were cast
with normal-strength concrete having an assumed design concrete compressive strength,
f c , of 35 MPa. These specimens have the same overall length o f 2 m and the same
thickness o f 400 mm. The depths o f deep beams are 520 mm for B-1S & IN, 810 mm for
B-2S & 2N, 1160 mm for B-3S & 3N and 1840 mm for B-4S & 4N respectively. The
complete test series o f eight beams is shown in Fig. 2.1.
The main tensile reinforcement on the bottom o f each deep beam was identical,
consisting o f 7-15M bars in a single layer. The longitudinal reinforcement was anchored
with 90-degree standard hooks to achieve adequate development length. The specimens
contained 9-10M two-legged stirrups spaced at 219 mm resulting in a reinforcement ratio
o f 0.225% in the vertical direction. All the standard hooks and bends conformed to
Clause 12.2 o f CSA Standard A23.1 (CSA 2001).
18
The tension development length, o f the 15M reinforcing is determined as:

ld
= 0 . 4 5 k l k 2k 3k 4 ^ j = d b
= 0 .4 5 x 1 .0 x 1 .0 x 1 .0 x 0 .8 x -^2 2 rx l6 = 389mm
(2.1)
V35
v / c'
lhb = 100d b l { f i = 1QJ ^ 16 = 270mm
(2.2)
The corresponding side concrete cover is 60 mm and the net cover on the bar extension
beyond the 90 hooks is 50 mm and hence the basic development length, kb, is multiplied
by the modification factor 0.7 in accordance with Clause 12.5.3b..
lhb = 2 7 0 x 0 .7 = 189mm
(2.3)
In accordance with Table N. 12.5.2 (CAC 1995) the distance from the point o f tangency
o f the hook to the end o f the hook is equal the inside bend radius plus the bar diameter,
db, or 98mm.
A minimum area o f reinforcement o f 0.002Ag must be provided in each direction. Using
10M stirrups, Av=200 mm , the required spacing o f transverse reinforcement, in
accordance with the requirements o f Clause 11.5.5, is:
s < ----- ^22-----= 250mm, and shall not exceed
0.002x400
300 mm
(2.4)
v 7
Along the beam length o f 2 m, 9-10M stirrups are required to fulfill the minimum crack
control requirement.
In order to arrange the stirrups uniformly, the spacing o f the
transverse reinforcement was chosen to be 219 mm.
Over the depth o f the beam, the spacing o f the horizontal reinforcement is 262 mm for
specimen B-3S and 247 mm for specimen B-4S. These pairs o f horizontal bars had 90
degree bend hooks at their ends. The steel was placed such that the free end extensions o f
the hooks were lap spliced over a length o f 230 mm through the thickness o f the beam.
The overall specimen details are shown in Figs 2.2 to 2.4.
19
2.2 Material Properties

2.2.1 Concrete
The eight beams were cast with ready-mix concrete. The specified concrete strength was
30 MPa with a water to cement ratio (w/c) o f 0.47 and a maximum aggregate size of
Table 2.1 Concrete mix proportions
Components
Quantity (kg/m3)
Volume (L)
Cement
340
108.14
Fine aggregate
787
290.74
Coarse aggregate 20 mm
472
175.35
Coarse aggregate 14 mm
575
214.32
Water
160
160
Total
2334
998.55
Admixtures (ml /1 0 0 kg)

Water reducing agent
313
1.06
Air entraining agent
56
0.19
Retarding agent
95
0.32
Slump
150 mm
Air content
6.0 %
Water / cement ratio
0.47
Density
2334 kg / m 3
20 mm. The slump and air content measurements were taken upon delivery and are given
in Table 2.1. The test specimens were covered with wet burlap and plastic sheeting a few
hours after casting, and were kept moist during the first 10 days. The control cylinders
and flexural beams were stripped o f their formwork and cured in 100% humidity
condition 24 hours after casting. The average compressive s tre n g th ,^ ', was determined
from the results o f testing 6 standard, 150mm diameter by 300 mm long, concrete
cylinders. Representative compressive stress-strain curves for the concrete are shown in
20
Fig 2.5. The average modulus o f ru p tu re,/-, derives from 6 flexural beam tests, 3 in a wet
surface condition and another 3 in a dry surface condition. The 150 x 150 x 400 mm sized
beams were subjected to third-point loading over a span o f 300 mm. In addition, three
Brazilian split cylinder specimens, 150 mm diameter by 300 mm long cylinders, were
tested to provide the splitting tensile strength, f sp. The average values o f the measured
concrete properties are given in Table 2.2. The concrete compressive strength o f the six
cylinders varied between 38.4 and 40.0 MPa. Shrinkage strains o f the concrete over time
were determined from standard shrinkage specimens measuring 3 x 3 x 10 in. One
shrinkage specimen was air dried, while the other was cured in 100% humidity condition.
The shrinkage strains are shown in Fig 2.6.
Table 2.2 Concrete properties
/ ( MPa)
/(M P a )
average
average
in wet condition
in dry condition
(std. dev.)
(std. dev.)
38.6
5.91
4.34
3.67
(1.072)
(0.327)
(0.261)
(0.076)
/ ' (MPa)
average
fsp (MPa)
average
(std. dev.)
(std. dev.)
2.2.2 Reinforcing Steel

Steel reinforcement consisted o f 10M and 15M deformed bars with a specified grade o f
400 MPa. Three tensile coupons were tested for each bar size. An extensometer with
gauge length o f 50.8 mm was used to determine the strains during testing. The properties
o f the reinforcing bars are summarized in Table 2.3. The 10M and 15M reinforcing steel
exhibit a distinct yield plateau. The reinforcing steel must conform to CSA Standard
G30.18 and be o f weldable grade. Stress-strain curves for the two different bar sizes are
shown in Figs 2.7 and 2.8. The modulus o f elasticity for all reinforcing steel has been
regarded as 200 GPa for both design and analysis purposes.
21
Table 2.3 Reinforcing steel properties

f y, MPa
Bar
average
Sy
Description
(std. dev)
459.8
10M
Esh
f uit, MPa
Erupt
average
average
average
(std.dev)
(std.dev)
(std.dev)
0.0195
616
0.0208
(0.00245)
(16.60)
(0.0016)
0.0192
578
0.297
(0.00042)
(4.787)
(0.0396)
0.00230
(11.72)
455.8
15M
0.00228
(9.30)
2.3 Test Setup and Instrumentation
The deep beams were installed under the 11,400 kN capacity MTS universal testing
machine (see Fig 2.9). Figure 2.10 shows the bearing details used for specimens. The
deep beams were simply supported on the laboratory strong floor. The bearing plates
were 25 mm thick and were 250 x 400 mm. The bearing plates rested on a rocker, having
a radius o f 250 mm, and in turn, rested on two 152 mm diameter rollers placed between
two 76 mm thick steel rectangular plates. These support conditions permitted elongation
o f the beams and rotation at the ends. Monotonic load was transferred through the
spherical seat o f the testing machine to the top loading plate at midspan o f the beams. The
size o f the 35 mm thick top loading plate was 300 x 400 mm. High-strength capping
compound was placed at the interface between the beam and bearing and loading plates.
Vertical displacements o f the beams at the two supports and at mid-span were measured
by three Linear Voltage Differential Transducers (LVDTs). The corrected central
deflection o f each beam was calculated by subtracting the average reading o f the LVDTs
at the two supports from the LVDT reading at mid-span. Five LVDTs were placed
horizontally at the level o f the centroid o f the longitudinal tension reinforcement, between
the centers o f two bottom bearing plates. The LVDTs were attached to short lengths o f
threaded rod that were grouted into the concrete. These connecting rods were placed at
22
350 mm on centres, such that the average strain could be determined over this gauge
length. In addition, six more LVDTs were centralized symmetrically at the intersection
o f the beam mid-height and centerlines o f net shear spans to form rosettes with 350 mm
gauge lengths. Figures 2.11 to 2.16 show the layout o f LVDT locations.
Electrical resistance strain gauges with a gauge length o f 5 mm were also used to detect
the tensile strain in the reinforcing bars. Figures 2.10, 2.11, 2.13 and 2.14 show the
positions o f electrical resistance strain gauges glued to the reinforcement prior to casting.
Eight gauges were situated on the surface o f the innermost bottom tension reinforcement
and another six (exclusive from B-3S & 4S) gauges were glued to the vertical distributed
reinforcement. Gauges LI and L8 were positioned at the inner edges o f the bearing
plates.
2.4 Testing Procedure
The specimens were initially loaded to properly seat the bearing and loading plates.
Wedges used to prevent the movement o f the rollers were removed just before testing.
The experimental loading was controlled via displacement at an initial rate o f 0.1
mm/min. After general yielding o f each specimen, the testing rate was increased to 0.15
mm/min. The rate was further increased by 0.05 mm/min at later stages o f loading. For
taking measurements at load stages, the deflection was held constant while the crack
widths were measured and the crack patterns were sketched and photographed. The crack
widths were measured with a crack comparator at locations where the cracks crossed the
main tension reinforcement and where the cracks crossed the horizontal line at mid
height o f each beam. After yielding occurred along the overall length o f the main tension
reinforcement, load stages were recorded at increments o f 2 to 3 mm o f the midspan
displacement. For each stage, the selected tensile strain, ss , was measured via the strain
gauges on the reinforcing steel and the strains were calculated from the LVDT readings.
After the peak load was reached, the loading was continued until the beam could only
resist 75% o f the peak load.
23
Notes: dimensions in mm
Figure 2.1 Overall views of specimens
24
400
2000
300
9-No. 10 stirrups
1160
(vertical distributed
reinforcem ent)
s = 219m m
7-No. 15
tension reinforcement
Section B-B
4-No. 10 double stirrups

(horizontal distributed reinforcement)
s = 262 mm
Section A-A
Figure 2.2 Details o f Specimen B-3S
25
400
2000
300
9-No.lO stirrups
1840
(vertical distributed
reinforcem ent)
s = 219 mm
7-No. 15
tension reinforcem ent
Section B-B
7-No. 10 double stirrups

(horizontal distributed reinforcem ent)
s = 247 mm
Section A-A
Figure 2.3 Details of Specimen B-4S
26
7-No. 15
tension reinforcemelnt
No. 10 rebar
Section A-A
Specimen B-3N
7-No. 15
tension reinforcement
No. 10 rebar
B-
Section B-B
Specimen B-4N
Figure 2.4 Details of Specimens o f B-3N and B-4N
27
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28 26
22
Cylinder No.2
14 12
Cylinder No.1
Cylinder No.3
0.0000
0.0005
0.0010
0.0015
0.0020
0.0025
0.0030
0.0035
0.0040
0.0045
0.0050
strain
Figure 2.5 Representative concrete compressive stress-strain curves
0.08
0.07 0.06 Shrinkage (air-dried)
0.05 -
0.04
ou>
x.rc
0.03
0.02
0.01
Shrinkage (mot:tst-cured)
0.01
20
40
60
80
100
days
Fig 2.6 Measured concrete shrinkage strains
28
120
650
600 550 500 450
400 S 350 8 300
250 200
150
100
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
0.22
0.24
0.26
0.28
strain
Fig 2.7 Stress-strain curves for 10M bars

650
600 550 500 450 400 S 350
8 300
250
200
150 100
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
0.1
0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
0.2
0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28
0.3
strain
Fig 2.8 Stress-strain curves for 15M bars
29
0.32 0.34 0.36
Figure 2.9 Specimen B-4S under the MTS testing machine
30
_660_
____55S_
300 X 400
25
250 X 400
102
76
152
76
Figure 2.10 Details of loading and bearing devices
31
900__________
550
ED
WD*
EH
WH
wv
H5
EV
H4
H3
H2
HI
CV
WST
EST
Note: dimensions in mm
4 350
typ.
Figure 2.11 LVDT locations for Specimen B-3S & 3N
L8
L7
L6
L5
L4
L3
L2
LI
Figure 2.12 Strain gauge locations and crack measurement lines for
Specimen B-3N
32
oo
>n
S6
L 8 ' L7 '
S4
S5
L6 '
S3
L5
219
m i 219 < 219^
1.4 '
1.3 '
S2
SI
1.2 ' LI
219
ON
,20Q
Specimen B-3S
WST
CV
Note: dimensions in mm
EST
* 350
typ.
Figure 2.14 LVDT locations for Specimen B-4N & 4S
33
,219^ 2 1 9 ,
Specimen B-4N
<
ON
N
S6
L 8 ' L7 '
S5
L6 '
S4
L5
S3
L4 '
S2
L3 '
SI
L2 ' LI
Specimen B-4S
34
Chapter 3
Experimental Results
This chapter describes the experimental response o f each specimen. This thesis reports
on four o f the eight beams forming a larger testing program carried out at McGill
University. The other four beams are reported by Ding Li (2003). The load-deflection
response is described in terms o f the total concentrated loading on the top o f the beam,
which is twice o f the applied shear force on each shear span.
3.1 Specimen B-3N

Specimen B-3N is 1160 mm deep and contains only the main tension tie reinforcement.
The first flexural hairline crack occurred at a load o f 734 kN. The first flexural-shear
crack formed in the west shear span at an applied load o f 961 kN. The counterpart on the
east side occurred at a measured load o f 962 kN. These three major cracks dominated the
cracking pattern o f Specimen B-3N. At load stage 5, the two diagonal cracks extended to
the inner edge o f the bottom bearing plates at an applied load o f 1326 kN. First yielding
occurred when the load reached 1584 kN at a deflection o f 2.74 mm and all o f the strain
gauges yielded at a load o f 1787 kN, at a deflection o f 3.10 mm. When the applied load
approached 2020 kN, a shear crack occurred suddenly on the east end. This major
cracking was accompanied by splitting o f the full-depth diagonal strut which formed from
the comer o f the top loading plate to the middle o f the bottom bearing plate
approximately, lead to brittle failure. The maximum deflection was 12.86 mm. The
measured width o f the crack was 6.0 mm resulting in a dramatic increase o f the east
diagonal (ED) LVDT reading located on the back o f the specimen, from 0.14 mm to 8.15
mm. The width o f the other diagonal crack at the west end was 5 mm and the main
flexural crack width was 10 mm. The strain gauge reading, L3, indicated that the
35
horizontal reinforcement most likely experienced strain hardening and no signs o f any
concrete crushing were apparent. It is noted that as the failure took place, the diagonal
cracks delineating the strut extended and followed the hook geometry. It is likely that loss
o f anchorage occurred during failure.
The applied load versus relative midspan displacement o f the beam is given in Fig 3.1.
The key load stages, peak load and relevant displacements are given in Table 3.1.
Figure 3.2 shows the applied load vs. horizontal strains measured in the bottom
reinforcing steel o f the main tension tie, determined from the strain gauges. It can be seen
that the strains are approximately the same throughout the overall length o f the main
tension tie (gauges LI to L8) as expected. At first yielding, the strains in the bottom
reinforcement determined from the strain gauges were 2063, 2281, 2219, 2214, 2241,
2201, 2227 and 1951 micro-strain for gauges LI to L8, respectively, at a total applied
load o f 1595 kN. At general yielding, the strains were 2470, 2733, 2571, 2589, 2602,
2562, 2574 and 2284 micro-strain for gauges LI to L8, respectively, at a load o f 1806 kN.
Figure 3.3 shows the applied load vs. average horizontal strain determined from the
LVDTs readings at the level o f the main tension tie.
The results obtained from the rosettes mounted on the back o f the specimen, including the
principal strains, shear strains and the principal angle calculated using M ohrs circle o f
strain are indicated in Fig 3.4. At stage 6 (first yield), the corresponding principal degrees
were 54.2 degrees and 53.6 degrees on west side and east side, respectively. At stage 7
(general yield), the corresponding principal degrees were 54.2 degrees and 54.9 degrees
on west side and east side, respectively.
36
Figures 3.5 to 3.7 show the development o f cracks in Specimen B-3N, including the
general yield and peak load stages.
Table 3.1 Key load stages for Specimen B-3N
Midspan
Load
Notes
Total applied
displacement
stage
load (kN)
(mm)
73.6
Initial seating
734
0.84
First flexural crack
961
1.40
First flexural-shear crack on west end
962
1.65
Second flexural-shear crack on east

end
Diagonal crack propagating to comer
5
1326
2.30
o f bearing plate on west end
1584
2.74
First yielding o f main tension tie

General yielding o f main tension tie,
1787
3.10
followed by a relatively flat loaddisplacement response
1902.4
3.51
11
2020
12.86
General yielding o f the system

Peak load, splitting o f concrete stmt
and loss o f anchorage at hooks
37
2200
2000
general yielding of the beai
total applied load (KN)
1800
leneral yielding of main tension
1600
first yielding of main tension tie
1400
1200
1000
800
600
first flexural crack
400
200
0
1 2
12
midspan deflection (mm)
Figure 3.1 Load-deflection response of Specimen B-3N
14
2500
2500
yield
2000
2000
1500
o 1500
o
.2
1 1000
(0
L7
*<5
o
4^
500 -
500
1000
2000
3000
4000
1000
m ic r o str a in
4000
5000
4000
5000
2500
yield
2000
L8
TJ
3000
m icro stra in
2500
.2000
2000
1500 -
1500
& 1000
500
500 -
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
m ic r o str a in
1000
2000
3000
m icro stra in
Figure 3.2 Strains in main tension tie o f Specimen B-3N, determined from strain readings
39
(a) First yield (total applied load o f 1584 klSi;
(b)
General yield (total applied load o f 1787 kN)
(c) Peak load (total applied load o f 2020 kN)
Figure 3.3 Longitudinal strains from LVDTs at the level of

main tension tie of Specimen B-3N (mm/mmxlO'3)
40
2500
2500
W EST
2000
W EST
EA ST
1500
o 1500
1000
1000
EA ST
500
500 -
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
-0.0008
0.0005
-0.0006
-0.0004
0.0002
strain
strain
(a) maximum principal strains, et
(b) minimum principal strains, e2
2500
2500
2000 -
W EST
WE ST
2000
z
EA ST
reo
o
o
o.
0a
o 1500 -
1500
1000 -
1000
500 -
EA ST
0.0002 0.0004 0.0006
0.0008
0.001
500
0.0012
strain
20
40
60
80
100
120
degrees
(c) shear strain, yxy
(d) principal angle,
Figure 3.4 Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-3N
41
02
Figure 3.5 Cracking patterns o f Specimen B -3N at first yielding
of the main tension tie

(Total applied load o f 1584 kN)
42
Figure 3.6 Cracking patterns o f Specimen B -3N at general yielding

(Total applied load of 1787 kN)
43
Figure 3.7 Cracking patterns of Specimen B-3N at peak load

(Total applied load o f 2020 kN)
44
3.2 Specimen B-3S

Specimen B-3S had an overall depth of 1160 mm and contained not only the
horizontal tension tie but also the bidirectional distributed reinforcement. First flexural
cracking of specimen B-3S occurred on the bottom face of the beam, close to
midspan, at an applied load of 700 kN. The first hairline diagonal crack formed from
the inner edge of the bearing at the east end support at load stage 4, at a load of 1312
kN. At stage 5, at an applied load of 1463 kN, a major diagonal shear crack initiated
from the west end support. This crack had a width of 0.2 mm.
First yielding of the main tension tie occurred at gauge L5 at an applied load of 1977
kN, at a deflection of 2.82 mm. General yielding of the main tensile reinforcement
occurred at stage 11 with an applied load of 2411 kN, at a deflection of 5.78 mm. At
the completion of the first four stages, flexural cracks had formed at the locations of
the transverse reinforcement and thus resulted in a uniform crack spacing of 220 mm.
Up to a load of 2411 kN, these flexural cracks became wider and extended, with no
significant new cracks forming. These cracks increased in width from 0.2 mm to 1.75
mm at the level of the centroid of the bottom reinforcement. At loads of 2430 and
2450 kN, two inclined cracks initiated from the comers of the top bearing plate and
abmptly penetrated over the full height of the beam to the middle of the bottom
bearing plates on the west and east sides. The width of four of the flexural cracks in
the midspan region of the beam reached widths of 4 mm indicating that the main
tension tie reinforcement had probably experienced strain hardening. The load
capacity continued to increase as the stirrups picked up some of the shear. Crushing of
the concrete immediately under the loading plate occurred at stage 14 corresponding
to the applied load of 2450 kN. The load continued to increase to the peak load of
2580 kN with a deflection of 26.68 mm. The load capacity of post-peak stage
decreased to 1963 kN, that is 76% of the peak load, at a deflection of 40.4 mm.
45
The applied load versus relative displacement of the beam is shown in Fig 3.8. The
load stages, peak load and displacement are given in Table 3.2. It should be noted that
there was no abrupt spalling and crushing of the concrete.
reinforcing steel of the main tension tie, determined from the strain gauges.
Figure 3.10 shows the applied load vs. vertical strain measured from the gauges on the
vertical, uniformly distributed reinforcement. There was a significant increase in the
tensile force in the stirrups after general yielding occurred. Prior to the peak load,
more than half of the vertical closed stirrups approached yielding. Gauges S4 and S6
were damaged at an early stage in the loading and hence the strains at these locations
could not be reported.
Figure 3.11 shows the responses of rosettes mounted at the back of specimen. The
principal strains, shear strains and principal angles determined from the rosettes
mounted on the back of the specimen, are shown in Fig 3.12. The principal angle is
defined from the horizontal direction and denotes the direction of the minimum
principal strain, in the other words, the maximum compressive strain. At stage 7 (first
yield), the principal angles were 59.2 degrees on the west end and 59.5 degrees on the
east end, respectively. At stage 11 (general yield), the principal angles were 63.8
degrees on west and 57.5 degrees on east, respectively. At stage 20 (peak load), the
principal angles were 57.7 degrees on west and 56.2 degrees on east, respectively
Figure 3.13 shows the total applied load vs. horizontal strain determined from the
LVDT readings at the level of main reinforcement on the west and east sides,
respectively.
Photographs showing the development of cracks in Specimen B-3S are given in Figs.
3.14 to 3.16, including at first yielding, general yielding and at the peak load stage.
46
Table 3.2 Key load stages for Specimen B-3S
Relative
Load
Applied load
stage
(kN)
18
Initial seating
700
0.78
1312
1.78
0.1 mm wide First shear crack on east
1463
1.98
0.2 mm wide Shear crack on west
1977
2.82
First yielding of the main tension tie
2254.8
3.5
General yielding of the system
11
2411
5.78
12
2430
6.35
First strut crack on west
13
2450
6.92
Second strut crack on east
14
2450
11.4
15
2488
14.7
Concrete cover spalling
20
2580
26.68
Peak load
21
2542
27.65
displacement
Notes
(mm)
General yielding of the main tension

tie
Concrete crushing underneath the

loading plate
Load dropped 40 kN after crack and

was reloaded to 2570 kN
25
1963
40.40
76% of peak load, end of testing
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
^ 1800
o 1600
1400
"g-^OO
1000
% 800
600
400
200
general yielding of main tension tie

general yielding of the beam ]
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42
F igure 3.8 L oad-deflection resp o n se o f Specim en B -3S
48
3000
3000
yield
_ 2500 -
2500 -
JX.
S'
2000 CB
o 2 0 0 0 -
J 1500 -
1500
Q.
Q.
1000 500
1000
500 -
1000
2000
3000
4000
1000
2000
m icrostrain
3 000
4000
5000
m icrostrain
3000
3000
2500 -
2500 -
yiejld
z
v
ao
2000
o 2 0 0 0 -
| 1500
5.
1500
1000
1000
500 -
L6
1000
2000
3 000
L4
500 -
L3
4000
m icrostrain
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
m icrostrain
F igure 3.9 Strains in m a in ten sio n tie o f Specim en B -3S, determ ined fro m strain readings
49
6000
3000
yield
2500
-o 2000
IS 1500
a
1000
500
-1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
m icro stra in
3000
yield
2500
rao 2000
o
1500
Q.
* 1000
rc
+
->
o
500
1000
-1000
2000
3000
4000
m icro stra in
3000
y eld
2500
o 2000
ra
o
-7- P
~v
'
S3
1500
f 1000
JS
o
_C )_
500
-1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
m icro stra in
F igure 3.10 Strains in vertical d istributed reinforcem ent o f Specim en

B -3S, d eterm ined from strain readings
50
3000
EH
2500
WH
2000
1500
1000
500
-0.005
0.01
0.005
0.02
0.015
stra in
3000
EV
WV
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.004
strain
3000
ED
2500
2000
o
.2
a
a
ra
1500
1000
500
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
stra in
F igure 3.11 R osette strain responses in Specim en B -3S
3000
3000
EAST
; EAST
---.
2500
2500
W E ST
W EST
o 2 0 0 0
2000
1! 1500 -
1500
1000 -
1000
500 -
500
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.015
0.025
-0.006 -0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001
s tr a in
0.001
s tr a in
(a) maximum principal strains,
(b) minimum principal strains,
3000
3000
EAST
2500
2500
W E ST
2000
W EST
D 2 0 0 0 -
1500 -
1500 -
1000 -
1000 -
500
500 -
EAST
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
s tr a in
20
40
60
degrees
(f) principal angle,
02
F ig u re 3.12 C alculated ro sette strain resp o n ses in S pecim en B -3S

52
80
10.623
1.425
1.686
2.861
2.465
1.582
7.971
7.79
2.023
(a) first yield (total applied load of 1977 kN)
(b) general yield (total applied load of 2411 kN)
_____________
84.844
73.711 ......" 'i
gg
38.286
I
- if-'"-
44 901
37.62
27.853
"*3 ST,
8.006
(c) peak load (total applied load of 2580 kN)
(d) after failure (total applied load of 1847 kN)

(Units: mm/mmxl0'3)
F igure 3.13 L ongitudinal strains fro m L V D T s at th e level o f m ain ten sio n tie o f S pecim en B -3S
53
F igure 3.14 C rack patterns o f Specim en B -3S at first yielding

o f the m ain ten sio n tie
(T otal applied load o f 1977 kN )
54
Figure 3.15 Crack patterns o f Specimen B-3S at general yielding

55
Figure 3.16 Crack patterns of Specimen B-3S at peak load

56
3.3 Specimen B-4N

Specimen B-4N had an overall depth of 1840 mm and contained only the horizontal
tension tie reinforcement. Strain gauge L4 on the main reinforcement was accidentally
damaged during the formwork removal-and hence did not function during testing. The
load when the first flexural hairline crack occurred was 1632 kN and two more
flexural cracks appeared shortly afterwards. The first flexural-shear crack formed on
the east side at stage 3, at a load of 1839 kN. This crack propagated to the east support
at an applied load of 3155 kN. Symmetrical cracking occurred on the west side at
stage 4 (total load of 2144 kN). When the load approached 3000 kN, the flexure-shear
crack on the west side extended to the west support. The flexural cracks varied in
width between 0.2 mm and 0.75 mm due to non-uniform spacing of these cracks. First
yielding occurred at strain gauge L6 when the load reached 2424 kN at a midspan
deflection of 2.59 mm and all the strain gauges indicated yielding at a total load of
2808.8 kN at a midspan deflection of 2.98 mm. When the applied load approached
3247.2 kN (deflection of 11.36 mm), on the east side, an abrupt inclined crack formed
due to the splitting of the compressive struts. This splitting crack extended over the
full height of the beam, from the comer of top bearing plate to approximately the mid
of the bottom bearing plate, leading to a brittle failure. The splitting crack had
extended to the level of the main tension tie and then followed the profile of the hook.
The sudden failure was caused by loss of anchorage of the outer hooks on the east end
of the beam at the support. Even though this splitting crack extended into the east
rosette, the LYDT readings were lost due to the abrupt failure of the specimen. The
maximum crack width at the mid-height of the deep beam reached 10 mm before the
failure occurred. The cracks at the level of the main reinforcement varied in width
between 0.2 mm and 1.0 mm. According to the readings from the strain gauges and
the LVDTs, the main reinforcement most likely experienced strain hardening. No
signs of concrete crushing were apparent. The main reinforcement had yielded in
tension over the course of testing with the maximum tensile strain (strain gauge L4)
exceeding 10 times the yield strain just prior to failure. Gauges L5, L6 and L7 failed
57
due to the very high strains that were reached. Strain gauges L5, L6 and L7 reached 8,
9 and 4 times the yield strain, respectively, before failure of the gauges.
The total applied load versus relative midspan displacement of the beam is given in
Fig 3.17. The load stages, peak loads and corresponding displacements are given in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Key load stages for Specimen B-4N

Relative
Notes
Load
Applied load
stages
(kN)
48.8
Initial seating
1632
1.44
1839
1.99
2144
2.32
2424
2.59
2808.8
2.98
displacement
(mm)
First shear-flexural combined crack

on east
Second shear-flexural combined
crack on west
First yielding of main reinforcement
General yielding of main
reinforcement
2843.6
3.24
3202
9.06
Strain hardening
3106
9.47
Extremely wide crack, up to 10 mm
10
3247.2
11.36
Peak load and splitting of concrete
reinforcing steel of the main tension tie determined from strain gauges.
58
Figure 3.19 shows the strain responses, principal strains, shear strains and principal
angle calculated from the LVDT rosettes. At stage 6 (general yielding), the principal
angles were 72.2 degrees and 67.5 degrees on the west and east sides, respectively.
Figure 3.20 indicates the longitudinal strains measured from LVDTs at the level of
main reinforcement on several key stages and photos for development of cracks are
shown in Figs. 3.21 to 3.23.
3400
3200
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
\\g e n e ra l yielding of the beam

general yielding of main tension tie
f
~
!
S
-s 1200
"
1000
800
600
400
200
0
10
Figure 3.17 Load-deflection response of Specimen B-4N
12
3500
3500
yield
yield
3 000
3000
2500
2500 -
2000
2 2000
a 1500
d.
2 1000
2 1000
500
1500 -
500 -
1000
2000
3 000
4000
1000
m icrostrain
3500
3000 -
3000 -
2500 -
2500 -
2000
a 1500 -
a. 1500
2 1000
2 1000
500 -
3000
4000
5000
6000
m icrostrain
3500
2000
2000
500 -
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
m icrostrain
1000
2000
3000
4000
m icrostrain
Figure 3.18 Strains in m ain ten sio n tie o f S pecim en B -4N , d eterm in ed fro m strain readings
60
5000
3500
3500
3000
EAST
W E ST
3000
EAS
2500
2500
2000
2000
1500
=5. 1500
I
1000
1000
500
500
2E-05
4E-05
6E-05
8E-05 0.0001 0.0001
-0.0004
s tr a in
-0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
s tr a in
(a) maximum principal strains, Ej
(b) minimum principal strains,
3500
62
3500
3000
3000 -
EAST
EAST
i 2500
2500
S 2000 -
2 2000
W E ST
-
a. 1500
o. 1500
W E ST
2 1000
2 1000
o
500 -
500 -
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
s tr a in
40
60
80
degrees
Figure 3.19 Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-4N

61
02
1.48
2.44
1.59
2.57
183
(b) general yield (total applied load of 2808.8 kN)
25.80
25.93
(c) peak load (total applied load of 3247.2kN)
Figure 3.20 Longitudinal strains from LVDTs at the level of main tension
tie in Specimen B-4S (mm/mmxlO')
62
Figure 3.21 Crack patterns of Specimen B-4N at first yielding

63
Figure 3.22 Crack pattern o f Specimen B-4N at general yielding

o f the m ain tension tie
(T otal applied load o f 2808.8 kN )
64
Figure 3.23 Crack pattern of Specimen B-4N after failure

(Maximum total applied load of 3247.2 kN)
65
3.4 Specimen B-4S

Specimen B-4S had an overall depth of 1840 mm and contained bidirectional
distributed reinforcement. The total applied load at first cracking was 1451 kN. First
inclined cracks formed, in the east shear span at stage 4 at a measured load of 2531
kN. At stage 5 corresponding to an applied load of 2695 kN, another inclined crack
developed in the west shear span, having a crack width of 0.2 mm. At this stage the
inclined crack on the east end propagated to the inner comer of the bottom bearing
plate.
On the main bottom reinforcement, strain gauges L3 and L7 experienced yielding at

the same time, at an applied load of 3658 kN and a deflection of 3.47 mm. Strain
gauge SI on one of the stirrups was accidentally damaged therefore it did not function
during the test. All of the strain gauges on the main tension tie reinforcement, except
for gauge L4, yielded at the applied load of 3992 kN, at a deflection of 3.82 mm.
Strain gauge L4 did not indicate "yielding" until a total load of 4407 kN was reached.
It is likely that the initial midspan flexural cracking missed the gauge location,
resulting in lower strain readings at this gauge location. At a later load stage strains in
gauge L4 increased rapidly as more cracking developed. At the completion of the first
seven stages, flexural cracks had formed symmetrically at the locations of the
transverse reinforcement and thus resulted in a uniform spacing of 220 mm. The width
of the cracks at the level of the main tension tie reinforcement and at the mid-height of
the beam varied within a very small range, between 0.4 and 0.5 mm, due to the
uniform crack spacing. When the total load reached 4450 kN at stage 8, a full-depth
crack initiated from the east comer of the top loading plate and instantaneously
propagated to the middle of the east support bearing plate. This crack was
accompanied by a drop in load to 4019 kN. This inclined crack had a width of 0.35
mm. Upon further loading the total load reached 4441 kN, with a second inclined
crack forming (crack width of 0.6 mm) on the west side. After this cracking, the load
dropped to 3954 kN. These two diagonal cracks did not pass through the rosettes.
66
Subsequently, the concrete underneath the edges of the top bearing plate crushed and
spalling of the concrete cover occurred at stage 11, corresponding to a load of 4550
kN and a deflection of 11 mm. The ability of the specimen to maintain and even
increase the load under significant deflections is probably a result of redistribution to
the horizontal and vertical uniformly distributed reinforcement. The width of the two
major inclined cracks increased to 2.0 mm. The middle five flexural cracks at the level
of the main reinforcement increased in width from 4.0 mm to 5.0 mm, indicating that
the horizontal bottom reinforcement most likely experienced strain hardening. Two
diagonal cracks initiating from the comers of the supports increased in width to 2.0
mm. At the mid-height of the specimen, the five major cracks varied in width from 2.0
mm to 5.0 mm indicating that even the horizontally distributed reinforcement reached
yielding and maybe even strain hardening. Another interesting phenomenon showed
that the loading plate was pushed about 20 mm downwards into the top surface of the
concrete. The applied load fluctuated and gradually reached a peak load of 4568 kN,
with a deflection of 17.39 mm. Upon further loading, the load dropped to 2696 kN,
which was 59 % of the peak load and the testing was stopped.
The applied load versus relative displacement of the beam is represented in Fig 3.24.
The load stages, peak loads and displacements are given in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Key load stages for Specimen B-4S

Relative
Load
Applied load
stage
(kN)
82
Initial seating
1451
1.29
2531
2.35
First shear crack on east
2695
2.58
Second shear crack on west
3658
3.47
First yielding of main tension tie
displacement
Notes
(mm)
67
3.82
General yielding of main tension tie
4141.2
4.24
4450
4.92
3992
7a
8
'
First strut crack on east, load dropped

to 4019 kN, then reached 4441 kN
Second strut crack on west, load
9
4441
dropped to 3954 kN, then reached
5.78
4470 kN
Concrete crushing underneath the top
11
4550
bearing plate, minor spalling of
11.0
concrete cover
13
4568
Peak load
17.39
Extremely wide cracks (up to 5 mm)

14
4494
and massive spalling of concrete
19.16
cover
16
2696
32.06
59% of the peak load, stop testing
reinforcing steel of the main tension tie determined from strain gauges.
Figure 3.26 shows the applied load vs. vertical strain measured from the vertical
transverse reinforcement. It shows that the strain gauges experienced small scale
tensile strains (less than 500 in micro-strain), as well as the tensile force. At general
yield, the sum of total hang-up forces provided by closed stirrups were approximately
70 kN determined from strain gauges. It is assumed that gauges SI and S6 had the
symmetric tensile strain. The total tensile force in stirrups is only the fraction of total
applied load of 3992 kN at general yielding stage. After the full delineation of inclined
struts, the vertical gauges indicated compressive strains.
Figure 3.27 shows the responses of LVDT rosettes mounted on the back of specimen
and calculated principal strains, shear strain and principal angle, respectively. At stage
6, when first yield was reached, the corresponding principal angles were 63.4 degrees
68
and 67.5 degrees on west side and east side respectively. These principal angles did
not change when the specimen main tension tie approached general yielding at an
applied load of 3992 kN.
Figure 3.28 exhibits the longitudinal strain at the level of main reinforcement
measured from LVDTs on several key stages.
Photos for development of cracks are shown in Figs 3.29 to 3.31.
69
4800
4500
4200
3900
~ 3600
i 3300
v 3000
r f general yielding of the beam

v general yielding of main tension tie
Y 2400 'a.
2100
m 1800 8 1500
1200
900 600 300 0

0
-
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
m id sp a n d eflectio n (m m )
Figure 3.24 Load-deflection response of Specimen B-4S
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without perm ission.
5000
5000
yield
4500
4500
~ 4000
4000
~ 3500
~ 3500
3000
o 3000
T3
2500
2500
1 2000
2000
15 1500
S 1500
2 1000
2 1000
500
500
L2
L6
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
1000
m icrostrain
3000
4000
5000
m icrostrain
5000
5000 -
4500
4500 -
-4 0 0 0
S ' 4000 -
~ 3500 -
2000
L3
3500
0 3000
3000 -
2500
2500 -
2000
"I 2000 -
1 1500
2 1000
(o
s 1500
2 1000
500
500 L5 L4
00
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
m icrostrain
1000
2000
3000
4000
m icrostrain
Figure 3.25 Strains in main tension tie of Specimen B-4S, determined from strain readings
71
5000
4500
S2
S5
4000
3500
ra
3000
o
o
~u
2500
Q.
2000
1500
a
n
o
1000
500
-1200
-900
-600
-300
300
600
m ic r o str a in
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-900
-600
-300
300
600
m ic r o str a in
5000
4500
S6
4000
3500
TJ
3000
2500
O.
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-400
-200
200
400
m ic r o str a in
F igure 3.26 Strains in vertical d istributed rein fo rcem en t o f

Specim en B -4S, d eterm ined from strain readings
72
5000
5000
4500 -k
' EA ST
4000 -
E A S T ;,....
T"V'-
- - 4500
W EST
3500 -
- - 3500
3000
2500
:
2000
- -
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.015
-0.006
-0.005
-0.004
s tr a in
-0.003
-0.002
0.001
s tr a in
(a) maximum principal strains, 6\
(b) minimum principal strains, 2
4500 4000 -
4500
4000 3500
W E ST
2500
2000
m 1500 1000
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
50
s tr a in
100
150
degrees
Figure 3.27 Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-4S

73
02
142,
2.37
_
1B4 J
3.10
1.24
(b) general yield (total applied load of 3992 kN)
79.86
50.06
20.17
15.32
(c) peak load (total applied load of 4568 kN)
7.90
(d) after failure (total applied load of 2696 kN)
Figure 3.28 Longitudinal strains from LVDTs at the level of main tension tie of Specimen B-4S (mm/mmxlO" )
74
Figure 3.29 Crack patterns of Specimen B-4S at first yielding

75
Figure 3.30 Crack patterns o f Specimen B-4S at general yielding

76
Figure 3.31 Crack patterns of Specimen B-4S at peak load

77
Chapter 4
Analyses and Comparison of Results
Several different methods o f prediction were carried out to determine the responses o f the
specimens tested. The 400 mm thick beams were loaded centrally on a 300 mm long top
loading plate and were supported on two 250 mm long bearing plates. All the plates had a
width o f 400 mm. A relatively small loading plate compared with the bearing plates was
intentionally chosen to determine the crushing strength o f the concrete under the loading
plate. In the strut-and-tie model, the concentrated load is replaced by two point loads at
the quarter points o f the loading plate length. A simple strut-and-tie model was used to
predict the capacity o f the specimens containing only the main tension tie reinforcement
since there was no additional reinforcement to contribute to the system resistance. Both
the FIP Recommendations (1996) and a refined model (Mitchell et al 2002) were used for
the specimens containing not only the main tension tie but also the bidirectional
distributed reinforcement. Because the strain distribution in disturbed regions is highly
non-linear, the traditional plane-sections beam theory is not applicable for predicting the
capacities o f deep beams. In addition, the experimental results calculated from the
rosettes mounted at the back o f the specimens are compared with the predicted strut-andtie models. In these predictions, the measured yield force o f the reinforcing and the actual
concrete compressive strength were used and the material reduction factors o f codes were
taken as 1.0. The concrete strength at the time o f testing was 38.6 MPa and the yield
stress o f reinforcing steel was approximately 460 MPa and 456 MPa for the 10M and
15M bars, respectively.
4.1 Simple Strut-and-Tie Models for Deep Beam B-3N & 4N
Simple strut-and-tie models were developed to establish the preliminary predictions o f the
total applied load for Specimen B-3N & 4N at general yielding stage (shown in Figs 4.1
and 4.2). The predictions o f the total applied load o f both specimens were governed by
general yielding o f the specimens. The main tension tie, which consists o f 7-15M bars
78
with a yield stress o f 456 MPa, has a yield force o f 638 kN. Since the main tension tie has
a 50 mm thick clear concrete cover, the effective depth o f the support nodal zones is
equal to 116 mm (2 x 50 + 16 mm). The 1994 CSA Standard A23.3-94 limits the nodal
zone stress to 0.85 f c' and 0.75 f c' for the loading and support zones, respectively. The top
node under the loading plate is located at half o f the equivalent rectangular stress block
depth below the surface. The concrete stress block depth is 48.6 mm to equilibrate the
yielding force o f the main tie. Hence, the top two nodes are located a distance o f
approximately 24 mm below the loading plate. It is assumed that the lines o f action o f the
diagonal struts intersect the line o f action o f the compressive resultants at the quarter
points o f the loading plate. The two lower nodes o f the concrete strut are located at the
intersections o f the centerlines o f the bearing plates and the line o f action o f the main tie.
From equilibrium, the predicted load capacity that corresponds to general yielding o f the
main tension tie is 1718 kN and 2800 kN for Specimens B-3N and B-4N, respectively.
These predicted values compare with 1902.4 kN and 2843.6 kN for the general yielding
loads experienced during testing. As expected these predictions are conservative. The
maximum loads reached were 2020 kN and 3247.2 kN for Beams B-3N and B-4N,
respectively. In these models, the assumed angles o f the compressive struts are 53.4
degrees and 65.5 degrees for Specimens B-3N and B-4N, respectively. From the
geometry o f the model, the widths o f the struts at the support nodal zones are 270 mm and
275.6 mm for Specimens B-3N and B-4N, respectively. At the predicted general yielding
level, the strut and nodal zone stresses are within all o f the codified limits.
4.2 Predictions using 1996 FIP Recommendations for Deep Beam B-3S
Figure 4.3
shows the
strut-and-tie model in
accordance with the
1996 FIP
Recommendations (FIP 1996). The main tension tie consists o f 7-15M reinforcing bars.
The top two nodes are located a distance o f 24 mm, half o f the block depth below the
loading plate. The centre-to-centre shear span is 875 mm and the shear span-to-effective
depth ratio, a/z, is 0.81. Following the 1996 FIP Recommendations, using Equation (4.1),
the portion o f the total applied load transferred directly from the loading plate to the
bearing plates through the inclined strut (direct mechanism) can be determined from:
79
(4.1)
1 - 1 / 3(2 a / z -1 ) = 1 - 1 / 3(2 x 0.81 -1 ) = 1 - 0.2 = 0.8
The stirrups are predicted to carry 0.20 o f the total load (indirect mechanism). The
transverse distributed reinforcement consists o f nine sets o f 10 mm diameter closed
stirrups at a uniform spacing o f 219 mm in the entire beam. Each stirrup has a yield force
o f 92 kN. According to the 1996 FIP Recommendations, length over which the stirrups
are effective (Equation (4.2)) is given by:
aw = 0 .8 5 a - z / 4 = 0.85x875 -1 0 7 8 /4 = 474mm
(4.2)
For this effective length o f 474 mm in each shear span, three stirrups, spaced at 220 mm,
are considered to be effective. In order to determine the load capacity o f the beam, the
direct mechanism and indirect mechanism are combined to complete the strut-and-tie
model. In order to determine the predicted capacity, the force in the tension tie in the most
critical region was set equal to the yield force o f 638 kN (7 x 200 mm x 456 MPa). The
critical section was chosen at midspan o f the beam. From equilibrium o f the strut-and-tie
model in Fig 4.3 and using the predicted proportions o f load carried by the two
mechanisms, the predicted load capacity is 1720 kN. The general yielding load and the
maximum load obtained from the test were 2254.8 kN and 2580 kN, respectively. It is
clear that the FIP Recommendations provide a conservative design approach. The
predicted angle o f minimum principal strain in the direct strut mechanism is 53.4 degrees.
The predicted tensile forces, 172 kN, in vertical stirrups within each shear span reached
62 % o f the yielding force o f 276 kN (3x92kN).
From the action center o f vertical
stirrups to the inner comer o f bearing plate, the tensile force in main tension tie reaches
574 kN, equal to 90 % o f the yielding force o f 638 kN.
4.3 Refined Strut-and-Tie Model for B-3S

The strut-and-tie model based on the FIP Recommendations (1996) shown in Fig 4.3
gives a conservative prediction as discussed in Section 4.1.2. A more accurate or refined
approach can account for the contributions o f the horizontal as well as the vertical
uniformly distributed reinforcement and the FIP Recommendations may be used as
guidance
in
developing
the
stmt-and-tie
model.
Following
the
80
1996
FIP
Recommendation, it is assumed that 0.80 o f the total applied load is transferred from the
loading plate directly to the bearing plates through the inclined strut (direct mechanism).
The stirrups are predicted to carry 0.20 o f the total load (indirect mechanism). It is
assumed that the additional horizontal reinforcement spread uniformly over the beam
depth redistributes the tension and compressive resultants for direct strut mechanism. This
combined model accounts for three o f the horizontal, 10 mm diameter, closed stirrups that
are considered to yield in the tension zone. The additional horizontal tie is located at their
centroid (mid-depth o f the beam) and is assumed to yield at a tensile force o f 276 kN
(3x2x100x460 kN). The main tension tie consists o f seven 15 mm diameter reinforcing
bars having a total yield force o f 638 kN. In predicting the load capacity o f the specimen,
the yielding o f main tension tie controls the failure mode. It is assumed the yielding o f
additional tension tie had reached at the stage o f general yielding. From equilibrium o f
the truss, the resultant concrete compressive area underneath the loading plate has an
equivalent rectangular stress block depth o f 70 mm to equilibrate the total yielding force.
The top two nodes are located a distance o f 35 mm, half o f the block depth below the
loading plate. The two lower nodes o f the concrete strut are located at the intersections o f
the centerlines o f the bearing plates and the line o f action o f the main tie. The part o f the
total load carried by the stirrups is provided along a length o f 474 mm (shown in Equation
4-1) in each shear span symmetrically for Specimen B-3S and hence totally six stirrups
are considered effective. In order to determine the load capacity o f the beam at general
yielding o f the main tension tie, the truss model (a) and truss model (b) are combined to
complete the strut-and-tie model shown in Figs 4.5 and 4.6. The tensile force at certain
critical cross section along the
main tension tie o f seven 15 mm reinforcing bars
corresponding to the two truss models are added together to achieve the yielding force o f
638 kN. The critical section was chosen at the midspan o f the beam for general yielding.
From equilibrium, the predicted load capacity is 2078 kN. At general yielding, the total
tensile force in three effective vertical stirrups for each shear span is 207.8 kN, equal to
75 % o f the total yielding force o f 276 kN. From the action center o f vertical stirrups to
the inner comer o f bearing plate, the tensile force in main tension tie reaches 560 kN,
equal to 88 % o f the yielding force o f 638 kN. The predicted load o f 2078 kN compares
with the experimentally determined general yielding load o f 2254.8 kN. The specimen
81
reached a maximum load o f 2580 kN. The refined model provides the most accurate
prediction.
4.4 Refined Strut-and-Tie Model for B-4S
Figure 4.7 shows the refined strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-4S. The centre-to-centre
shear span is 875 mm and the shear span-to-effective depth ratio is 0.5. Following the
1996 FIP Recommendation and the 1994 CSA Standard A23.3-94, the total applied load
is transferred from the loading plate directly to the bearing plates through the inclined
strut by direct mechanism. There is no force redistribution by the stirrups. The main
tension tie consists o f seven 15 mm diameter reinforcing bars having a yield force o f 638
kN. This model accounts for six o f the horizontal, 10 mm diameter, closed stirrups that
are considered to yield in the tension zone. The additional horizontal tie is located at their
centroid (mid-depth o f the beam) and is assumed to yield at a tensile force o f 552 kN. In
predicting the load capacity o f the specimen, the yielding o f horizontal distributed stirrups
and main tension tie controls the failure mode. The resultant concrete compressive area
underneath the loading plate has an equivalent rectangular stress block depth o f 91.2 mm
to equilibrate the yielding force o f the main tie. The top two nodes are located a distance
o f 46 mm, half o f the block depth below the loading plate. . The two lower nodes o f the
concrete strut are located at the intersections o f the centerlines o f the bearing plates and
the line o f action o f the main tie. The top nodes are located at the intersections o f the
quarter points o f the loading plate and the line o f action o f concrete compressive
resultants. From equilibrium, the predicted load capacity that corresponds to general
yielding o f the main tension tie is 3975 kN for Specimen B-4S. The general yielding load
was 4141.2 kN and the maximum load reached was 4568 kN. The refined model gives a
fairly accurate and conservative prediction. The predicted minimum principal strain angle
is 65.7 degrees from the horizontal direction at the mid-height o f the specimen based on
the geometry o f this refined strut-and-tie model established. Because the total applied
load is supported by the direct strut mechanism, the tensile force in vertical transverse
stirrups should be approximately zero.
82
Table 4.1 Comparison between the prediction and testing results
Minimum principal angle

Capacity
Total applied
Specimen
Load stage
prediction
in degrees
load (kN)
(kN)
From
Prediction
rosettes
B-3S
2078
2254.8
56.9
60.7
B-3N
General yielding o f
1718
1902.4
53.4
54.6
B-4S
the system
3975
4141.2
65.6
65.5
2800
2843.6
65.5
69.9
B-4N
83
800
150
638kN
116
0.5P
0.5P
250
Figure 4.1 Simple strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-3N
800
65.5
116
0.5P 0.5P
638kN
0.5P
0.5P
250
Figure 4.2 Simple strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-4N
84
0.4P 0.4P
T1=0.297P
0.4P
0.4P
1750
125
125
(a) Direct strut mechanism

0.1P 0.1P
150
A 69.6
T3=0.074P
T !=0.037P
0.1P
T2=0.037P\
1750
H K125
(b) Indirect strut mechanism

P=1720kN
//
//
//
//
//
/
tz
/ 3
/ ^
/
/
Tl+T3=638kN
w
irs \ \
t- \
\
Tl+7'2^574kN / /
1 /
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
\\
\ T l+T2^^4kN
A
(c) Combined strut-and-tie model
Figure 4.3 Strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-3S using FIP

Recommendations (1996)
85
P=1911kN
T1+'
8kN
Combined strut-and-tie model
Figure 4.4 FIP model for Specimen B-3S assuming strain hardening and
spreading o f yielding in main tension tie
86
0.4P 0.4P
276kN
Tl=0.3P-141kN
0.4P
0.4P
(a) Direct strut mechanism

0.1P O.IP
0.075P
!f2=0.0375P
T2=0.0375H
(b) Indirect strut mechanism

P=2078kN
//
276kN
\ \
//
Tl#T2=560kN
Tl+T3=638kN
04
\\
T1+T2=56%N
1750
125
125
(c) Refined strut-and-tie model
Figure 4.5 Refined strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-3S
87
P=2309kN
276kN
Tl+T3=725kN
1750
125
125
Combined strut-and-tie model
Figure 4.6 Refined strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-3S assuming strain
hardening and spreading of yielding in main tension tie
800
0.5P 0.5P
552kN
638kN
116
0.5P
0.5P
250
Figure 4.7 Refined strut-and-tie model for Specimen B-4S
88
Chapter 5
Conclusions
The conclusions arising from this research programme are summarized as follows:
1. The tests clearly demonstrated the benefits o f providing uniformly distributed
reinforcement in addition to the main tension tie. This provision o f distributed
reinforcement resulted in higher capacities, greater ductility, smaller and more
uniformly spaced cracks, better confinement o f the nodal zones and control o f
bond splitting cracks particularly at the anchorage o f the main tension ties.
2. The absence o f uniformly distributed reinforcement resulted in lower capacities,
lower ductilities, poor crack control and at the end o f testing the beams suffered
brittle bond-splitting failures over the bearings.
3. It is recommended that deep beams be provided with uniformly distributed crack
control reinforcement (e.g., reinforcement ratio o f 0.002 horizontal and vertical).
4. The strut-and-tie models using the 1996 FIP Recommendations provide
conservative predictions due to the fact that the contribution o f the horizontal
distributed reinforcement is neglected. This approach is suitable for design.
5. Refined strut-and-tie models, utilizing the contributions o f both the horizontal and
vertical uniformly distributed reinforcement provide more accurate predictions for
the deep beams tested (span-to-depth ratios o f 0.81 and 0.5). In accordance with
the observed test results, the horizontal uniformly distributed reinforcement was
assumed to yield.
6. Crushing o f the compressive struts and nodal zones did not occur before general
yielding o f the tension tie. The maximum compressive stress in the nodal region
below the loading plate reached 0.94/c which is somewhat greater than the
compressive stress limit o f 0.85/T, suggested by CSA Standard A23.3.
7. More research is required for beams in the transition between slender and deep
beam span-to-depth ratios. Research on the influence o f fibre-reinforced concrete
would enable a study on the effect o f fibres on the improved cracking response o f
deep beams.
89
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, (2002). Building Code Requirements fo r Structural Concrete,
A C I3 Commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI (2002). Examples fo r the Design o f Structural Concrete with Strut-and-Tie
M odels, Editor K.H. Reineck, ACI Special Publication SP-208, Farmington Hills, MI,
242 p.
American Association o f State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
(1993). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Washington, D.C.
ASCE-ACI Committee 445, (1998). Recent Approaches to Shear Design o f Structural
Concrete, ASCE Journal o f Structural Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 12, pp.1375-1417.
Canadian Portland Cement Association (CPCA), (1995), UCPCA Design H andbook,
CPC A, Ottawa, ON.
Canadian Standard Association (CSA), (1984). CSA Standard A23.3-84. '''Design o f
Concrete Structures fo r Buildings , CSA, Rexdale, ON.
Canadian Standard Association (CSA), (1994). CSA Standard A23.3-94. Design o f
Concrete Structures, CSA, Rexdale, ON.
Collins, M. P. and Mitchell, D., (1986). A Rational Approach to Shear Design- The 1984
Canadian Code Provisions. ACI Journal, Vol. 83, No.6, pp. 925-933.
Collins, M. P. and Mitchell, D., (1987). Prestressed Concrete Basics", Canadian
Prestressed Concrete Institute, Ottawa, ON, 614 pp.
Collins, M. P. and Mitchell, D., (1991). uPrestressed Concrete Structures, Prentice-Hall
Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 766 pp.
Cook, W.D. and Mitchell, D., (1988). Studies o f Disturbed Regions near Discontinuities
in Reinforced Concrete M em bers, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 206-216.
90
Cook, W.D., (1987). Studies o f Reinforced Concrete Regions Near Discontinuities,

Ph.D. Thesis, Department o f Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill
University, Montreal, 153 pp.
FIP Commission on Practical Design, (1996). Design o f Discontinuity Regions", FIP
Recommendations 1996- Practical Design o f Structural Concrete, London.
Kani, M.W., Huggins, M.W. and Wittkopp, R.R., (1979). Kani on Shear in Reinforced
Concrete , Department o f Civil Engineering, University o f Toronto, Toronto, ON, 225 p.
Leonhardt, F. and Walther, R. (1966). Wandartiger Trager, Deutscher Ausschuss fur
Stahlbeton, Bulletin No. 178, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, 159 p.
Li, D., (2003). Behaviour and Modeling o f Deep Beams with High Shear Span-to-Depth
Ratios, M.Eng. Thesis, Department o f Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics,
McGill University, Montreal, QC, 120 p.
MacGregor, J. G., (2002). Derivation o f Strut-and-Tie Models fo r the 2002 A C I C ode,
Examples for the Design of Structural Concrete with Strut-and-Tie Models, ACI Special
Publication SP-208, pp. 7-40.
Macleod, G., (1997). Influence o f Concrete Strength on the Behaviour o f Bridge Pier
Caps , M.Eng. Thesis, Department o f Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill
University, Montreal, QC, 131 pp.
Marti, P., (1985). Basic Tools o f Reinforced Concrete Beam Design, ACI Journal, Vol.
82, No. 1, pp. 45-56.
Mitchell, D., Cook, W.D., Uribe, C.M. and Alcocer, S.M., (2002). Part 3: Experimental
Verification o f Strut-and-Tie Models , Examples for the Design o f Structural Concrete
with Strut-and-Tie Models, ACI Special Publication SP-208, Farmington Hills, MI, pp.
41-62.
Morsch, E., (1909). Concrete-Steel Construction (Der Eisenbetonbau), translation o f
3rd German edition by E. P Goodrich, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 368 p.
Morsch, E., (1920). Reinforced Concrete Construction-Theory and Application" (Der
Eisenbetonbau-Seine Theorie Und Anwendung), 5th German edition, Wittwer, Stuttgart,
V ol.l, Part 1.
91
Ontario Ministry o f Transportation and Communications, (1991). Ontario Highway

Bridge Design C ode (OHBDC'), Downsview, ON.
Park, R. and Paulay, T., (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 769 p.
Ramirez, J. and Green, J., (1991). Evaluation o f a Modified Truss Model Approach fo r
Beams in Shear, ACI Structural Journal. Vol. 88, No. 5, pp. 562-571.
Ritter, W., (1899). The building method hennebique {Die bauweise hennebique),
Shweizerische Bauzeitung, Vol. 33, No. 7, pp. 59-61.
Schlaich, J., Schafer, K., (1991). Design and Detailing o f Structural Concrete Using S
Models, The Structural Engineer, Vol.69, No.6, pp. 113-125.
Schlaich, J., Schafer, K., and Jennewein, M., (1987). Toward a Consistent Design o f
Structural Concrete, PCI Journal, Vol.32, N o.3, pp. 74-150.
Thurlimann, B., Marti, P., Pralong, J., Ritz, P., and Zimmerli, B., (1983). "Anwendung
derPlastiztatstheorie Stahlbeton (Application o f the Theory o f Plasticity to Reinforced
Concrete), Institut fur Baustatik and Konstruktion,
Hochschule, Zurich, 252 p.
Eidgenossische Technische
Vecchio, F.J. and Collins, M.P., (1986). The M odified Compression Field Theory fo r
Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear, ACI Journal, Vol.83, No.2, pp. 219231.
92

Behaviour and Modeling of Deep Beams With Low Shear Span-To-Depth Ratios

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

Behaviour and Modeling of Deep Beams With Low Shear Span-To-Depth Ratios

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

Behaviour and Modeling of Deep Beams

Department o f Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics

Zhen Yu Li, 2003

395 W ellington S treet

395, rue Wellington

The author retains copyright

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur

In compliance with the Canadian

Conformement a la loi canadienne

While these forms may be included

Bien que ces formulaires

Behaviour and Modeling of Deep Beams

Comportements et modelisation de poutres profondes

En tout, huit poutres

La presente etude exam ine les

Les specim ens etaient

longs de 2 0 0 0 mm et avaient une epaisseur de 4 0 0 mm et deux d entre eux etaient

Des m odeles de bielles-et-tirants furent developpes afin de predire les

C ette approche donna des predictions tres conservatrices sur la

specim ens ayant des aciers verticaux et horizontaux.

Ces derniers ont donnes des

predictions plus pres de la realite concernant la resistance des poutres profondes.

Chapter 1 Introduction and Literature Review ................................................................. 1

Chapter 2 Description o f Test Specim ens.......................................................................... 18

Chapter 3 Experimental Results

3.1 Specimen B -3 N ................................................................................................ 35

Chapter 4 Analyses and Comparison o f R esu lts.................................................................78

Chapter 5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 89

Examples o f disturbed regions.................................................................................... 10

A simple strut-and-tie model for deep beams............................................................11

Compressive strength o f diagonally cracked concrete, as a function o f the

Compressive strength o f strut, as a function o f the angle o f crossing tension tie

Failure o f simply supported deep beams....................................................................15

Deep beam with transverse stirrups, tested by Uribe and Alcocer......................... 16

Strut-and-tie model for deep beam tested by Uribe and Alcocer..........................17

Overall view o f specimens.......................................................................................... 24

Details o f Specimen B-3S............................................................................................25

Details o f Specimen B-4S........................................................................................... 26

Details o f Specimen B-3N & 4 N ............................................................................... 27

Representative concrete compressive stress-strain curves...................................... 28

Measured concrete shrinkage strains......................................................................... 28

Stress-strain curves for the 10M bars.........................................................................29

Stress-strain curves for the 15M bars.........................................................................29

Specimen B-4S under the MTS testing machine.................................................... 30

Details o f bearing and loading devices...................................................................... 31

LVDT locations for specimen B-3S & 3N................................................................32

LVDT locations for specimen B-4S & 4N............................................................. 33

Load-deflection response o f Specimen B -3N .......................................................... 38

Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-3N.......................................... 41

Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3N at first yielding o f main tension tie

Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3N at general yielding o f main tension tie .. 43

Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3N at peak load.................................................44

Load-deflection response o f Specimen B-3S.......................................................... 48

Strains in vertical distributed reinforcement o f specimen B-3S, determined from

Rosette strain responses in Specimen B-3S............................................................. 51

Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-3S...........................................52

Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3S at first yielding o f main tension tie...........54

Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3S at general yielding o f main tension t i e ... 55

Cracking patterns o f Specimen B-3S at peak load..................................................56

Load-deflection response o f Specimen B-4N..........................................................59

Calculated rosette strain responses in Specimen B-4N.......................................... 61