Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Large openings in reinforced concrete (RC) deep beams generally exists for a particular structure that results in different calcu-
interrupt the load transfer by concrete struts and cause a sharp lated capacities.
decrease in strength and serviceability. The reinforcement detailing Large openings, if located between the loading point
of these deep beams based on strut-and-tie models (STMs) can and the support, will disrupt the flow of force transfer and
be complex and, very often, these models may not predict the usually significantly reduce the load-carrying capacity (Ray
failure mechanism of deep beams due to localized damages. This
1990). ACI 318-08 does not give any explicit guidance for
study investigates the performance of two RC and two steel fiber-
reinforced concrete (SFRC) deep beams with large openings under
designing these elements with openings. Based on limited
monotonically increased concentrated loads. The boundary regions experimental studies (Maxwell and Breen 2000; Chen et al.
near the supports of two specimens were strengthened with steel 2002; Park and Kuchma 2007; Tan and Zhang 2007; Ley et
cages formed by steel reinforcement bars. The RC specimen with al. 2007; Breña and Morrison 2007; Kuchma et al. 2008),
strengthened boundaries exhibited a ductile mode of failure and it is inferred that STMs provide reliable, consistent, and
had significantly higher ultimate strength than predicted by STMs. conservative results for deep beams with openings but fail
Although the complex reinforcement detailing as per STMs was to predict the ultimate load and failure mode. Also, some
not used, the SFRC specimens with 1.5% volume fraction of fibers tests have shown that large differences can occur between
reached much higher strength than the design load and exhibited the calculated forces from STMs and the actual instrumented
significant postpeak residual strength and a ductile mode of failure. experimental specimens (Breña and Morrison 2007). A
poorly detailed STM can lead to unacceptable levels of
Keywords: deep beam; fiber-reinforced concrete; opening; structural concrete;
strut-and-tie model. cracking and damage, and limited postpeak ductility under
service loads (Kuchma et al. 2008). Nevertheless, STMs
INTRODUCTION provide flexibility to the designer to focus on safe and
Reinforced concrete (RC) deep beams are generally used performance design; however, the constructibility becomes
as load-transferring elements, such as transfer girders, pile a main issue due to problems with anchorage and congestion
caps, tanks, folded plates, and foundation walls. In buildings, of reinforcement bars.
a deep beam or transfer girder is used when a lower column Steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) has gained
on the exterior façade is removed for architectural purposes. increased popularity in construction industries in recent
Sometimes the full depth of the floor-to-floor height is years. Reinforcing concrete with steel fibers has been used
used to transfer the high axial forces of columns above to to reduce conventional steel reinforcement in structural
members such as slabs (ACI Committee 544 1996). SFRC
the supporting columns below. Large openings through struc-
members exhibit enhanced shear strength, more ductile
tural members are frequently required for mechanical and
behavior, and reduced crack widths (Dupont and Vandewalle
electrical conduits or even for means of passageways, such
2003). Eliminating shear reinforcement in RC structures can
as openings for doors and hallways in buildings. ACI 318-08
potentially reduce the congestion of reinforcing bars and
(ACI Committee 318 2008) defines a deep beam as a struc-
construction costs. In addition, steel fibers offer multi-direc-
tural element in which either the clear span is equal to or less tional reinforcement in concrete, simple detailing without
than four times the overall depth, or the concentrated loads congestion, and enhanced postcracking residual strength
are applied within a distance equal to or less than two times and ductility. Past studies (Narayanan and Darwish 1988;
the depth from the face of the support. Code-specified empir- Mansur and Ong 1991) have shown that including discrete
ical formulas used to design these members do not explicitly fibers enhances the strength and deformation capacities of
address the design of D-regions with openings. Strut-and- deep beams and provides better crack control.
tie models (STMs) are extensively used for these structures This paper presents the performance of two RC deep
with D-regions since their implementation in various U.S. beams with large openings under monotonically increased
design codes. These models idealize a deep member as a concentric loading. The observed ultimate strengths and
series of concrete compressive struts and steel tensile ties failure modes of these specimens were compared with those
connected at joints (called nodes) idealized as frictionless predicted by a design STM. Further, two geometrically
“pins” forming a truss. The applied force is transferred similar SFRC specimens with a 1.5% fiber-volume fraction
from the loading point to supports only through the STM,
and the remaining concrete between the trusses is neglected
for design and strength calculation purposes. STMs satisfy ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 2, March-April 2012.
any load system based on a statically admissible stress field MS No. S-2010-057.R6 received October 25, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights
that does not exceed the yield criteria and provide safe and reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
lower-bound designs of discontinuous structures (Schlaich copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the January-February 2013 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is
et al. 1987; Muttoni et al. 1997). Hence, no unique STM received by September 1, 2012.
Design STM
The principal factor in the design of concrete elements
with discontinuity regions is the selection of a suitable
STM. The position of struts and ties in a model can be based
on the elastic principal stress fields (Schlaich et al. 1987;
MacGregor 1997; Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445 2002) or
the stress fields at the development plastic hinge mechanisms
(Muttoni et al. 1997). An STM approximately following
the elastic (principal) stress distribution was considered in
this study. It should be noted that the direction of principal
Fig. 2—Design STM adopted in this study (solid lines stresses may change after the cracking in concrete; however,
represent ties and dashed lines represent struts). the flow of forces will help decide the position of struts
and ties in the model. The stress distribution shows that the
were tested under identical loading conditions. The conventional applied load in the test specimen is transferred directly from
reinforcing bars in the SFRC specimens were used as flexural the loading point to the right support through a bottle-shaped
tensile reinforcement only at the bottom of the specimens. strut; however, the opening near the lower left corner impairs
Based on the test results, the detailing of reinforcement bars the direct load transfer from the load point to the left support.
at the critical locations and the importance of steel fibers As shown in Fig. 2, the STM considered in this study is basi-
in concrete is recognized to enhance the performance of cally a modified model proposed by Schlaich et al. (1987).
concrete deep beams with openings. This model was also previously used by Breña and Morrison
(2007) for comparison with laboratory test data. The right
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE part of the STM beyond the loading point consisted of a truss
Past experimental studies have shown the conservative system to resist the transverse tension and the compression
estimates of ultimate strengths and unpredictable failure in the bottle-shaped concrete strut formed due to the direct
mechanisms of RC deep beams with openings designed flow of forces from the loading point to the support, whereas
the left part consisted of two truss systems that transfer the shear strength of concrete but also control the cracking due
applied load to the left support around the opening. to temperature and shrinkage (Mindess et al. 2003).
As shown in Fig. 3(a), the longitudinal reinforcing bars
Specimen reinforcement at the bottom of Specimen RC1 were provided with stan-
The test RC specimens were designed for an ultimate dard 180-degree hooks at both ends, whereas the other
strength of 31.3 kips (139 kN), the same as that used by reinforcing bars were provided with a 180-degree hook
a previous study (Breña and Morrison 2007). The nominal only at the end located near the edge of the specimen. Steel
values of compressive and tensile strengths of the concrete reinforcing bars were positioned to provide the required tie
and reinforcement bars were assumed as 5000 and 60,000 psi action as per the selected STM. Prior experimental studies
(35 and 414 MPa), respectively. A strength-reduction factor (Maxwell and Breen 2000; Breña and Morrison 2007;
φ equal to 0.75 was used for all struts, nodes, and ties in Flores 2009) showed that deep beam specimens suffered
the STM (Breña and Morrison 2007). Detailed informa- severe cracking and crushing of concrete near the supports.
tion about the strut geometry and forces, and the efficiency This is primarily due to the insufficient confinement of
factor bs can be found elsewhere (Breña and Morrison concrete in the strut near the support under high compres-
2008). No. 3 (10 mm) bars with a nominal area of 0.11 in.2 sion. To avoid these local failures, a steel cage formed by
(71 mm2) were used as steel reinforcing bars, provided in four No. 3 (10 mm) longitudinal reinforcement bars at the
two layers in the RC specimens with a clear concrete cover corners and No. 3 (10 mm) transverse stirrups at a spacing
of 1 in. (25 mm) to the edges of the reinforcing bars. All of 4 in. (100 mm) was used as a boundary element near
reinforcing bars ending near the edges of the specimens the supports of Specimen RC2. As shown in Fig. 3(b), the
were provided with standard hooks with required develop- bottom longitudinal reinforcing bars of Specimen RC2 were
ment lengths to provide sufficient anchorage and avoid their provided with standard 90-degree hooks and inserted into
pullout. Secondary reinforcing bars for the temperature the steel cage for the required anchorage. Except for the
and shrinkage cracking for walls were not provided in this steel cage at the supports, the reinforcement detailing was
study because these bars can significantly enhance the load- exactly the same in both RC specimens.
carrying capacities of test specimens (Breña and Morrison Figure 3(c) shows the reinforcement detailing of
2007). Thus, the minimum vertical and horizontal reinforce- Specimen SFRC1, in which only two No. 3 (10 mm)
ment requirements as per the ACI 318-08, Section 14.3.1, reinforcing bars were used as longitudinal tensile
provisions for walls were not satisfied for these specimens. reinforcement at the bottom. Similar to Specimen RC2,
Although the secondary reinforcement was expected to Specimen SFRC2 consisted of steel cages at both the left
increase the ductility of the concrete, thus allowing a truss- and right ends near the supports in addition to two No. 3
like plastic mechanism to form, it was hardly realized, as (10 mm) reinforcement bars as longitudinal tensile bars at
evidenced by prior experimental results (Maxwell and Breen the bottom. The spacing of stirrups in the steel cage was kept
2000; Breña and Morrison 2007; Kuchma et al. 2008). It as 4 in. (100 mm), which was exactly the same as that used
should also be noted that steel fibers not only enhance the in Specimen RC2. To restrain the opening and propagation
Fig. 4—Flexural behavior of SFRC: (a) load-displacement behavior of ASTM beams; and
(b) multiple cracks in ASTM beams. (Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
of cracks emanating from the corner of the opening, two sive strength of concrete. The tensile stress-strain response
No. 6 (20 mm) bars were placed diagonally in two layers of the steel reinforcing bar was also obtained through coupon
near the opening of Specimen SFRC2, as shown in Fig. 3(d). tests. Table 1 summarizes the nominal and actual proper-
These bars were purposely overdesigned to prevent the ties of the concrete and steel reinforcement bars used in the
failure initiating from the corner so as to achieve better test specimens. Six 4 x 8 in. (100 x 200 mm) cylinders
stress distribution in the specimen. These diagonal bars were and four reinforcing bars 25 in. (63 mm) long were used to
oriented as normal to the line connecting the loading point to evaluate their material properties. The average values of the
the corner of the opening. Unlike the RC specimens, the SFRC compressive strengths of concrete used in the RC and SFRC
specimens did not require any reinforcement detailing, which specimens at the day of testing were 6700 and 6300 psi
resulted in a very fast and simple construction process. (46 and 44 MPa), respectively. The actual yield strength
of the No. 3 (10 mm) steel bars was 81.2 ksi (560 MPa)
Mixture compositions and material properties against their nominal value of 60 ksi (414 MPa). The ulti-
A concrete mixture of nominal 28-day compressive mate tensile strength of these bars was 126.7 ksi (874 MPa).
strength equal to 5000 psi (35 MPa) was used in all test Tensile testing of the No. 6 (20 mm) bars was not carried out
specimens. A mixture design was carried out to achieve the because they were not expected to yield under the applied
target compressive strength of concrete and use the optimum loading, which was also monitored by strain gauges, as
quantity and similar proportions of materials in both the discussed in the following.
RC and SFRC specimens. The design mixture proportion The flexural performance of the SFRC material was evalu-
(by weight) used for all specimens was 1.0 (cement):0.5 ated by a three-point test on SFRC beams 6 x 6 in. (150 x
(fly ash):1.7 (sand):1.0 (coarse aggregate). Type I portland 150 mm) square in cross section and 20 in. (500 mm) in
cement, Class C fly ash, and coarse aggregates of maximum length in accordance with ASTM C1609/C1609M-10.
size limited to 0.5 in. (13 mm) were used in the concrete Figure 4(a) shows a typical load-deflection response of SFRC
mixture. A constant water-cementitious materials ratio (w/cm) ASTM beams under three-point loading. The ASTM beams
of 0.4 was used in all specimens. No chemical admixtures reached an average peak lateral load of 10.8 kips (48 kN)
or high-range water-reducing admixtures were added to the and exhibited appreciable deflection-hardening behavior and
concrete mixture. Both SFRC specimens consisted of end- postpeak residual strength due to the fiber-bridging effects.
hooked steel fibers (diameter = 0.03 in. [0.75 mm]; length = As shown in Fig. 4(b), the first flexural crack was initiated
2.4 in. [60 mm]; aspect ratio = 80; tensile strength = 152.3 ksi at the midspan of the ASTM beam and propagated toward
[1050 MPa]) of volume equal to 1.5% of the total volume of the compression zones until failure. Smaller microcracks
the specimen. Based on an earlier study by Liao et al. (2010) also developed from the initial crack after the first crack was
for a highly flowable mixture, the weight of cement and formed. The pullout of steel fibers from the concrete was
steel fibers used in the SFRC specimen was 312 and 77 lb noticed at the failure stage. The tensile behavior of the SFRC
(142 and 35 kg), respectively. materials was investigated by conducting a direct tensile
Standard tests (ASTM C31/C3M-09, ASTM C39/C39M-09, test using a dogbone-shaped specimen having a 4 x 4 in.
and ACI 318-08) were carried out to evaluate the compres- (102 x 102 mm) square cross section central portion (Chao
TEST RESULTS
The performance of the test specimens was evaluated in
terms of the following parameters: overall cracking, load-
deflection response, failure mechanism, ultimate strength,
and variation of tie forces. A detailed discussion on these
parameters is presented in the following sections.
Overall cracking
The propagation of cracks in the test specimens was
mapped after each load increment of 5 kip (22.5 kN) inter-
Fig. 5—Tensile behavior of SFRC: (a) stress-strain/crack vals. The first crack in Specimen RC1 was noticed near the
opening response of tensile SFRC specimen; and (b) multiple supports at a load level of 25 kips (112.5 kN). As shown
cracking in tensile SFRC specimen. (Note: 1 ksi = 6.89 MPa; in Fig. 6(a), diagonal cracks initiated from the opening
1 in. = 25.4 mm.) at a 30 kip (135 kN) load level and propagated with
Fig. 6—Crack propagation in test specimens: (a) Specimen RC1; (b) Specimen RC2; (c) Spec-
imen SFRC1; and (d) Specimen SFRC2. (Note: Dimensions in kips; 1 kip = 4.45 kN.)
Load-displacement response
Figure 9 shows the load-displacement behaviors of all test
specimens. As expected, the initial stiffness of both RC spec-
imens was nearly equal. Specimen RC1 showed an almost
linear response up to 55 kips (248 kN), and the maximum
load carried by Specimen RC1 was 68.2 kips (307 kN)
before the testing was stopped due to severe damage near
the supports. In contrast, Specimen RC2 showed excel-
lent post-yield behavior because the local failure near the
supports was effectively controlled. Specimen RC2 showed
linear elastic behavior up to approximately 95 kips (428 kN),
beyond which a deflection-hardening behavior was noticed
up to a peak load of 132.1 kips (594 kN). The load-carrying
capacity of Specimen RC2 was nearly two times that of
Specimen RC1. Both RC specimens reached their design
load-carrying capacity of 31.3 kips (139 kN), showing
overstrength factors of 2.0 and 4.2 for Specimens RC1 and
RC2, respectively. The excellent post-yield strain-hardening
behavior of Specimen RC2 was achieved due to the yielding
of the bottom longitudinal reinforcing bars in tension, which
was confirmed from the state of strains measured using
uniaxial strain gauges. The delaying of premature local fail- Fig. 8—Comparison of formation of struts in specimens at
ures near the supports due to the presence of steel cages at 65 kip (293 kN) load level: (a) Specimen RC1; and (b) Spec-
the boundaries helped Specimen RC2 to exhibit a displace- imen SFRC1. Note: Dots represent AE events (locations of
ment ductility of nearly 4.0. The descending branch of the microcracks).
load-deflection response of Specimen RC2 exhibited a
sudden drop from its peak strength due to the shear failure
that occurred below the opening.
As shown in Fig. 9, the load-displacement response
of Specimen SFRC1 was nearly linear up to a peak load
of 65 kips (293 kN). The initial stiffness of both SFRC
specimens was nearly equal to that of the RC specimens.
Specimen SFRC2 showed a nearly linear response up to a
peak load of 96.8 kips (435 kN), which was much higher
than the design load of 31.3 kips (139 kN) for the RC
specimens. It should be noted that even though there were
almost no steel reinforcing bars (except the steel cage at
the supports and longitudinal bars at the bottom) used as
per STMs, Specimen SFRC2 reached 3.0 times the design
load of the RC specimen. Further, the SFRC specimens Fig. 9—Load-displacement response of test specimens.
showed a very gradual postpeak descending branch in the (Note: 1 kip = 4.45 kN; 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
load-displacement response even without steel reinforcing
bars, indicating significant contribution of the steel fibers Mode of failure
to the residual strength of the specimen. The displacement Because different detailing of reinforcing bars was
ductility of Specimen SFRC2 was approximately estimated used in the test specimens, it was expected that the
as 3.0. The boundary elements and diagonal steel reinforce- failure modes would be different due to the availability of
ment bars helped Specimen SFRC2 to achieve the design various load-transfer mechanisms. The ultimate failure of
strength without premature local crushing and cracking of Specimen RC1 was primarily due to the crushing of concrete
concrete near the boundaries in addition to the sufficient struts followed by the loss of the concrete wedge near the
residual strength. supports (Fig. 7(a)). A similar mode of failure was also noticed
for Specimen SFRC1, as shown in Fig. 7(b). However, the from that of Specimen SFRC1. A major crack (compressive
crushing of concrete was less severe as compared to that of strut) developed just above the opening of Specimen SFRC2.
Specimen RC1 due to the confinement effect provided by the Due to the presence of diagonal steel reinforcing bars,
steel fibers. The lack of confinement to the concrete under the major (failure) crack deviated from the corner of the
high axial compressive forces in the vertical segment of the opening and formed at the end of those bars. The failure of
openings and boundaries near the supports caused the ulti- Specimen SFRC2 was fairly ductile, as evidenced by the
mate failure of the specimens. As shown in Fig. 10(a), local large deformation and formation of several plastic hinges, as
failure at the supports of Specimen RC2 was not observed shown in Fig. 11(a) and (b).
during the entire loading because of the sufficient confine-
ment provided by the steel cage to the concrete under high Ultimate strength
compressive stresses. A major flexural crack running from As stated previously, the design strength of the RC spec-
the bottom face to the loading point was observed at the imen was 31.3 kips (139 kN). The specimen was analyzed by
failure stage of Specimen RC2. As shown in Fig. 10(b), a strut-and-tie computer program, CAST (Tjhin and Kuchma
Specimen RC2 eventually collapsed due to the shear failure 2002), in which the analysis of nodes is carried out, ensuring
of concrete in the horizontal segment of the opening because that the geometry and stress limits are not exceeded. Using the
of inadequate shear reinforcement. This ultimately led to the specified material strengths and a strength-reduction factor of
fracture of the bottom longitudinal tensile reinforcing bars 0.75, the nominal ultimate strength of the RC specimen was
after reaching their failure strains. The major cracks devel- estimated as 41.2 kips (183 kN). The expected capacity of
oped away from the opening region, indicating that the flow the RC specimen was estimated as 70.3 kips (313 kN) using
of force was least affected by the presence of the opening a strength-reduction factor as unity and the actual material
due to the local strengthening of Specimen RC2 near the properties obtained from the testing of concrete cylinders and
supports. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 11(a), the steel bars. The effective width and the width of the tension
failure mode of Specimen SFRC2 was completely different zone extension in the model were considered as 4.38 and 2 in.
Microstrain
Microstrain
Stress, ksi
Stress, ksi
Tu /Tcalc
Tu /Tcalc
kips
kips
Specimen RC1 (Pu = 68.2 kips) Specimen RC2 (Pu = 132.1 kips)
†
1 0.11 — — 2757.7 79.97 8.8
*
ANC 4.9 — 17.9 —
2 0.11 770.0 22.33 2.5 2802.3 81.27 8.9
4 0.11 2000.0 58.00 6.4 4375.4 81.85 9.0
E24 5 0.11 25.6 1380.0 40.02 4.4 20.4 0.80 2447.8 70.99 7.8 33.6 1.31
6 0.11 1640.0 47.56 5.2 3102.2 81.40 9.0
7 0.11 960.0 27.84 3.1 15,994.3 92.00 10.1
E19 22.0 5.4 0.25 20.0 0.91
8 0.11 740.0 21.46 2.4 13,520.2 90.00 9.9
9 0.11 2400.0 69.60 7.7 11,966.7 88.00 9.7
E18 12.8 15.8 1.23 20.0 1.57
RC specimen
Specimen SFRC1 (Pu = 65.9 kips) Specimen SFRC2 (Pu = 96.8 kips)
1 0.11 462.1 13.40 1.5 931.3 27.01 3.0
ANC 3.0 6.4
SFRC specimen
critical regions of the specimens that are not identified by much higher strength than the design strength, these models
STMs and to suggest the reinforcing detailing to avoid local- failed to predict the locations of such local failures, where
ized failures and enhance structural performance. usually no special detailing is provided. The use of confining
The following conclusions were drawn in this study: reinforcement (that is, a steel cage) in the support regions
1. Design STMs significantly underestimate the ultimate significantly improved the ultimate strength of the RC spec-
strengths of the test specimens. The RC specimens designed imen and changed its mode of failure to a much more ductile
as per the STM without satisfying the requirement of manner. As a consequence, significant flexural action was
secondary reinforcements as per ACI 318-08, Appendix A, noticed in Specimen RC2 without any local failure and the
provisions reached the design strength without failure. specimen showed an ultimate capacity of more than four
2. The crushing of concrete that occurred in the highly times the design strength.
stressed region over the supports was primarily due to the 3. Both Specimens RC1 and SFRC1 (without the steel
lack of confinement of the concrete under high axial stress. cage) showed comparable behavior. Specimen SFRC2 with
Although RC specimens designed according to STMs had the steel cage near the supports reached three times the