STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Chapter 3
Linear Elasticity Deep Beams
Linear elasticity is the most common material model in structural engineering. The
term 'elastic' means that the deformation is uniquely defined by the applied load.
Deformation is linearly proportional to the applied load.
Linear elasticity is based on the following common assumptions:
Strain is linearly proportional to stress.
Strain induced in the right angle to the applied strain is linearly proportional to
the applied strain (Poisson's ratio effect).
The material is homogeneous and continuous.
Deformation is relatively small in comparison with the structural dimensions.
Assumptions related to normal beam theory (Beam Bending):
Plane sections remain plane. For prediction of both bending stress and shear
stress, this assumption gives results as follows:
9 With high span to depth ratios - Good
9 With deeper beams - span to depth ratios in range of 3.0 to 6.0
acceptable for order of magnitude check.
9 With low span to depth ratios (less than 3.0) - Low accuracy.
Poisson's ratio effects can be neglected.
Small deformation.
Shear deformation can be calculated independently of bending deformation.
With high span to depth ratios, shear deformation can be neglected (assign a
large shear area in your analytical model to achieve this).
For deep beams it is essential to use PLANE STRESS models rather than BEAM
element models to obtain better results.

Failure Modes in Deep Beams

With the variation in stress distribution in reinforced concrete deep beams, there is
also an associated change in failure mode. Kong et al (1990) observed that a
reinforced concrete deep beam may exhibit failure modes prior to reaching full
flexural capacity commonly shear type failures. Although the occurrence of
flexural failure in deep beams is less common, it is typically preceded by
substantial yielding of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement. Other failures occur in
anchorage and bearing at points of high stress concentration such as the supports
and the point of load application, but this can be mitigated through detailing.
The CIRIA guide (1977) outlines in some detail four failure modes, each of which
are reportedly dependent upon the amount and position of reinforcement: Flexural,
shear, bearing and bursting failures. These may occur either independently or
combined, but it clearly states that with a span/effective depth ratio < 1.5 bearing
stress will govern and be the critical failure mechanism.

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 19

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

The descriptions of the flexural and shear failure modes identified by the CIRIA
guide are outlined below:

Flexural Failure inelastic yielding and fracture of the tensile reinforcement,

with vertical cracks propagating from the soffit almost to the full effective
height (refer to Figure 2.1), which results in an increase in the lever arm with
the onset of flexural cracking, generating an approximately uniform tensile
force in the longitudinal steel.

Figure 3.1 Typical flexural failure mechanism (CIRIA, 1977)

Cole (1968) made the same observation during experimental work on reinforced concrete
beams of varying span-to-depth ratios. He states that a typically shallow beam with a low
steel ratio will fail when the tension reinforcement yields, causing the high bending
stresses within the region of maximum bending moment to crush the concrete, together
with large inelastic deformation. In deep beams, failure occurs when the tied-arch fails
either by crushing of the concrete at the crown or by the rupture of the tension tie leading
to large inelastic deformation.

Shear Failure typified by the widening of the diagonal cracks and crushing of the
concrete between them (refer to Figure 2.2).

Figure 3.2 Typical shear failure mechanism (Kong et al, 1990)

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 20

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Kong et al (1990), drew the following conclusions with regard to shear failure:

That the shear capacity of the critical section had been exceeded.
That shearing resistance is mainly provided by the section of beam below the
neutral axis, with shear strength in the absence of reinforcement being provided
by aggregate interlock and dowel action.
Furthermore, Kong et al (1990) have observed variations in failure mode dependent upon
reinforcement quantities, such that in the absence of shear reinforcement, the main factor
contributing to the shear resistance is the concrete strength within the compression zone
above the neutral axis, with the tension zone below the neutral axis making little
contribution. This type of failure mode is characterised by an inclined crack propagating
from the shear span independent of the flexural cracks, close to the supports and
extending up towards the region of load application. This reportedly induces failure as the
compression zone in the middle of the beam is severed since the inclined cracks penetrate
further than any flexural cracks resulting in the area of the compression zone coinciding
with the crack tip being smallest, giving an increase in volume and inducing transverse
tensile stresses in adjacent areas (Kong et al, 1990). Therefore, the combination of
compressive forces due to load transfer via the concrete struts and tensile forces in this
zone induces beam collapse at a load far lower than that corresponding with flexural
capacity (Kong et al, 1990), though unlikely to be a result of shear capacity failure at the
critical section.

CIRIA Guide (1977) Recommendations

With regard to the shear capacity of deep beams, three modes have been identified
(CIRIA, 1977), and are given in order of the increased effectiveness of the reinforcing steel
provided within the web:
1. Orthogonal cracking from the load point to the support, resulting in splitting of the
beam without crushing the concrete (refer to Figure 2.3).

Figure 3.3 Shear failure mode 01 (CIRIA, 1977)

2. Development of additional parallel cracks defining a series of compression struts that
initiate failure by crushing of the concrete between the cracks of one compression strut
(refer to Figure 2.4).

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 21

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Figure 3.4 Shear failure mode 02 (CIRIA, 1977)

3. Complete penetration of the compression zone by a diagonal crack under the point of
load application and localised concrete crushing at that point (refer to Figure 2.5).

Figure 3.5 Shear failure mode 03 (CIRIA, 1977)

In addition, the upper limit for the shearing resistance of the concrete is as set out in
BS8110, and represents the point at which the concrete will crush through compression
between the vertical web reinforcement. However, Kong et al (1990) report it is widely
accepted that the main contributing factor to shear resistance is aggregate interlock
because only after mobilisation of the aggregate interlock can the cracked web be the sole
contributor to shear resistance.

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 22

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Example
For the simple deep beam shown in Figure 3.1, set up appropriate models of the
two structures (beam 1 span to depth ratio 2 and beam 2 span to depth ratio 1/2),
using plane stress elements. Analyse the structures and compare the results with
the simple beam theory.

Figure 3.6 Deep Beam Elevation and Section

Validation of Results: Long Beam (span = 4.0m [2*(1800+200)])

Simple Beam Theory

I = 0.25 * 23 / 12 = 0.1667 m4
M = wL2 / 8 = 10 * (1.9*2)2 / 8 = 18.05 kN-m
Stress = M y / I = (18.05 * 1.0) / .1667 = 108.3 kN/m2
Computer Analysis Results (See contour plot Figure 3.7)

Maximum tensile stress at beam bottom face = 122.3 kN/m2

Minimum compressive stress at beam top face, = 104.7 kN/m2
There is good correlation between simple beam theory and plane stress analysis.
The difference is not significant; however, the plane stress model is a much better
representative of the real structure.

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 23

STAD 501

LOAD CASE =
Loadcase 1
RESULTS FILE =
STRESS

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

1
1

CONTOURS OF SX
-104.397
-90.7801
-77.1631
-63.5461
-49.9291
-36.3121
-22.695
-9.07801
4.53901
18.156
31.7731
45.3901
59.0071
72.6241
86.2411
99.8582
Max 122.3 at Node 124
Min -104.7 at Node 5

Figure 3.7 Contour plot of stress in x-direction

Deflection check
Beam theory

dymax = (5/384) * w*L4 / EI = 5/384 * 10 * 3.84 / (20*106 * 0.1667)

dymax = 0.0081mm
Computer Result
dymax = 0.0189 mm (good correlation)
Differences due to shear deformation (span / depth = 4/2 = 2.)
B

Short Beam (Span = 2.0 m, 1.8m Clear)

Simple Beam theory

Moment = 10 * 1.82 / 8 = 4.05 kN-m

I = 0.25*23 /12 = 0.166667m4
Maximum stress = 4.05*1 / 0.166667 = 24.3 kN/m2
dymax = (5/384) * 10 *1.84 / (20*106 * 1.33) = 2.05 * 10-4 mm.
It should be noted that the due to a small span to depth ratio the deformation in the
deep beams are significantly small and they are not causing any problems. More
attention should be devoted to direct and shear stresses.
Computer Results

Maximum tensile stress at beam bottom face at beam centreline = 70 kN/m2

Minimum compressive stress at beam top face at beam centreline = 6 kN/m2
There is no correlation with beam theory. Due to small span to depth ratio beam theory is
no longer valid.

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 24

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Loadcase: 1:Loadcase 1
Results file: Deep Beam.mys
Entity: Stress - Plane Stress
Component: SX
-48.4677
-42.4092
-36.3508
-30.2923
-24.2338
-18.1754
-12.1169
-6.05846
0.0
6.05846
12.1169
18.1754
24.2338
30.2923
36.3508

42.4092
48.4677

54.5262
60.5846

Figure 3.8 Contour plot of stress in x-direction (Short Beam)

Solid 3D Model
Loadcase: 1:Loadcase 1
Results file: Deep Beam Solid.mys
Entity: Stress - Solids
Component: SX
-57.2815
-50.9169
-44.5523
-38.1877
-31.8231
-25.4585
-19.0938
-12.7292
-6.36462
0.0
6.36462
12.7292
19.0938
25.4585
31.8231

38.1877

44.5523
50.9169

57.2815
63.6462
Maximum 69.9929 at node 384
Minimum -57.2994 at node 73

Figure 3.9 Solid Model Contour plot of stress in x-direction (Short Beam)

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 25

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

General observation
From the contour plot of stresses the arching action is clear.
Stress at around 0.8 m above the bottom face of the beam become small.
Stress is not linearly along the section depth
Maximum tensile stress (70 kN/m2) is not the same as maximum
compressive stress (about 6 kN/m2).
Maximum tensile stress from simple beam theory is 24.3 kN/m2 which is not
any more a true representative of the stress within the beam.
Maximum deflection at beam centre of 2.05 * 10-4 mm obtained from beam
theory is not the same as that obtained by the computer (5.07 * 10-4 mm).
It is clear that beam theory is not any longer valid for deep beams.
Plane stress model must be used to truly represent the beam.
Students must analyse these structure using 3D models and compare their
analysis with the 2D.

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 26

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Development of an approximate method

It is clear that the simple beam theory is inadequate for the calculation and
checking the magnitude of stresses in deep beams (beams with low span to depth
ratios). To be able to check and validate the computer results the following
approximate rules are proposed:
A

CIRIA GUIDE 2

These rules are based on the calculation of the area of reinforcement needed to
resist the induced stress, mostly at tension zone of the beam. The CIRIA Guide
gives the following simple rules:
The area of reinforcement provided to resist the positive and negative moments
should satisfy the following condition:
M
As =
087 f y z
where M is the design moment at ultimate state and z is the lever arm at which the
reinforcement acts.
The lever arm, z, may be assumed to be:
For single span, positive sagging moments: L/h < 2.0
z = 0.2L + 0.4ha
For multi-span beams, mid span and support moments: L/h < 2.5
z = 0.2L + 0.3 ha
where L = effective span and
ha = effective height of the deep beam.
ha = h when L > h
ha = L when h > L
B
Rafiqs proposed method
For simplicity, the following assumption may be used to carry out an order of
magnitude check on the magnitude of the bending stress within the deep beams
with L/h < 2.0.
Divide the section into two parts:
o 0.6ha from the bottom face is assumed to be under stress
o and h - 0.6ha from the top face is assumed not to resist any significant
stress.
Use the top part of the beam as dead load and add this to the other loads and
analyse the structure.
The distribution of section and stress is shown in Figure 3.10.

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 27

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Computer results
Maximum tensile stress at beam bottom face at beam centreline = 70 kN/m2
Minimum compressive stress at beam top face at beam centreline = -6 kN/m2
Apply the above approximation:
h > L therefore ha = L = 2.0 m
Maximum tensile stress (70 kN/m2).
T = [70*(0.2*1.8)] * 0.25 = 3.15 kN
M = T x Z = 3.15* (0.45*1.8) = 2.55 kN-m
Beam theory
WT of the top part = (2-0.4*1.8) * 0.25 * 24 = 5.52 kN/m
Total applied load = 10*5.52 = 15.52
M = wL2 / 8 = 15.52*1.82 /8 = 6.29 kN-m
Not close but many be acceptable for order of magnitude. Reason for
large difference is that the beam is not deep enough to have part of it
unstressed.
For deeper understanding, students must look other literature for
simplified methods and compare their results.

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 28

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Fuents (1995)
Fuents numerical models are established upon experiments carried out upon
rectangular beams subject to a UDL, and can be used to determine the stresses
within a homogenous beam of varying depth. Unlike the methods defined by CIRIA
and Rafiq, there are a series of models to apply, dependent upon the beam
span/depth ratio (see Figures 2.14 2.17), as defined below:
For L

=4

max = ' max = 12W b

Figure 2.14 Stress distribution for span/depth ratio = 4 (Fuents, 1995)

For L

=2

max = 4.5W b

' max = 3W b

Figure 2.15 Stress distribution for span/depth ratio = 2 (Fuents, 1995)

The neutral axis is approximately 0.4d above the soffit

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 29

STAD 501

For L

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

=1

max = 1.6W b
' max Varies from zero at the neutral axis to 0.42W b at the upper surface

Figure 2.16 Stress distribution for span/depth ratio = 1 (Fuents, 1995)

The neutral axis is approximately 0.28d above the soffit
For span-to-depth ratios < 1.0:
-

max remains approximately 1.6W b

' max remains approximately 0.4W b

Neutral axis remains at a depth approximately equal to 0.25d

Figure 2.17 Stress distribution for span/depth ratio < 1 (Fuents, 1995)

Checking the short beam example using (Fuents, 1995)

Figure below shows stress distribution along the beam depth

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 30

STAD 501

For L

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

=1

max = 1.6W b
' max Varies from zero at the neutral axis to 0.42W b at the upper surface
Tensile stress max = 1.6W

= -1.6*10/0.25 = -64 kN/m2 Good correlation with the

computer results (70kN/m2)

Compressive stress = 0.42*10/0.25 = 16.8 kN/m2

Acceptable correlation with the Computer results (6 kN/m2 )

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 31

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Summary of Deep Beams

Main points of topics introduced in this chapter could be summarised as follows:
Definition of deep beams and differences between deep beams and shallow
beams.
Inadequacy of beam theory for deep beams.
Analytical modeling of deep beams using Plane Stress element.
Continuous deep beam and stress pattern.
Practical pitfalls and common mistakes.
Simplified methods and their limitations.
Validation of computer results.
Bar detailing rules and link between analysis and design.

References
BRAAM, C.R. (1990)Control of Crack Width in Deep Reinforced Concrete
Beams,Delft University of Technology, Netherlands.
COLE, D.F. (1968),Behaviour of Deep Reinforced Concrete Beams
MSc Thesis, University of Nottingham.
FUENTS, A. (1995), Reinforced Concrete after Cracking, 2nd Edition
Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Ltd, New Delhi.
KIM, D., KIM, W., WHITE, R.N.(1999). Arch Action in Reinforced Concrete
Beams A Rational Prediction of Shear Strength, Journal American
Concrete Institute, 96(4) pp 586-593
KONG F. K. and ROBINS P. J. (1972), Shear Strength in Reinforced Concrete
Deep Beams, Concrete, 6(3), pp 34 36
KONG, F. K., ROBINS, P. J., and SHARP, G. R. (1975), The Design of
Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams in Current Practice,The Structural
Engineer, 53(4), pp 173 180
KONG, F.K. et al. (1990), Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, Blackie & Son
Ltd, London.
LUSAS FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS (2008), LUSAS 14.2.2 Modeller User
Manual
MACLEOD, I.A. (1988), Technical Note 133: Guidelines for Checking
Computer Analysis of Building Structures, CIRIA, London.
MACLEOD, I.A. (1990), Analytical Modelling of Structural Systems, Ellis
Horwood Limited, Chichester.

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 32

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

OVE ARUP & PARTNERS, (1977), CIRIA Guide 2: The Design of Deep Beams
in Reinforced Concrete, CIRIA, London.
Rafiq, M. Y., and Easterbrook, D. J., (2005). Using the Computer to Develop A
Better Understanding in Teaching Structural Engineering Behaviour to
Undergraduates, ASCE Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, Vol. 19(1),
pp. 34-44,ISSN 0887-3801
SUBEDI, N.K. (1988), Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, Proceedings of
Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineers, 85(2) pp 1 30.
SUBEDI, N.K.(1998), Reinforced Concrete Two-Span Continuous Deep
Beams, Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers, Structures and Buildings,
128(1) pp 12-25
TENG, S., MA, W., TAN, K.H. and KONG, F.K. (1998), Fatigue Tests of
Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, Structural Engineer, 76(18) pg 347-352
YATES, M. C. (2002), The Linear and Non-Linear Analysis of Reinforced
Concrete Deep Beams; PRCE401- Individual Project, University of Plymouth
YUN, Y. M. (2000), A Refined Strut-Tie Model Approach and its Application
Tool, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers; Structures and
Buildings, 140, pg 13 - 24

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 33

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

Deep Beam Examples ( Plane Stress Model)

Objectives:

To understand differences between long and short beams

To appreciate the usefulness of the FEA methods

To examine and understand the validity and limitations of the simple beam theory
To examine and understand the arching effect in Deep beams
To examine and understand the applicability of simplified deep beam Analysis, Design
and Detailing methods

Long Deep beam Beam (span / depth = 2.0)

2.0 m

Wall Thickness = 250 mm

4 .0 m

Short Deep Beam

(L / d = 2/3)
Thickness = 250 mm

3.0 m

2.0 m

Applied load = 10 kN/m applied as face load of

(10/0.25 = 40 kN/m2)
at the top face of the Beam

Dr M Y Rafiq

Page 34

STAD 501

Chapter 3 - Analysis of deep beams

MEng and MSc

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS (STAD 501)

DEEP BEAM ASSIGNMENT
For the structures shown below carry out the following tasks:

use the attached LUSAS data files to analyse the structures

use an approximate method to establish bands of reinforcements for sagging and

hogging moments; overlay these on the contour plots and comment on the suitability of
the approximate analysis

draw the contour plots for direct stress in x-direction (Sx) and shear stress (Sxy)
compare the results with the beam theory and the simplified methods; draw relevant
conclusions

6m

6m

E = 20 kN/mm^2
v = 0.25
Load self wt

0.25 m
Section of both beams

6m

3m

Dr M Y Rafiq

3m

Page 35