Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
A.A. Mufti
by
July, 1965.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ABSTRACT
ii
NOTATION
iii
CHAPTER 1.
INTRODUCTION
Object of Investigation
CHAPTER 2.
HISTORY
CHAPTER 3.
T'F ORY
10
13
14
Relaxation Method
15
17
25
EXPERIMENT~
29
37
Steel Beam
37
39
Concrete Deep
43
Bea~
Test Specimen
43
Material
43
Experimental Set Up
44
45
Casting
47
Strain Gauges
47
Details of Reinforcement
48
Tests
50
Discussion of Resulta
52
70
Elastic Range
70
Ultimate Load
74
CHAPTER 5.
CONCLUSIONS
79
CHAPTER 6.
81
Al?PENDICES
A.
82
B.
92
C.
PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
93
Compression
93
Tension
93
D.
97
E.
99
F.
SAMPLE GALCULA.TIONS
REFERENCES
101
106
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
~.
w.
Lambert, labor-
atory technicians1 for their generous help in carrying out the tests;
.e
ii
M.Eng.
Department of Civil
Engineering and
Applied Mechanics
ABSTRACT
~eep
The distribution of the horizontal stresses for each test has been
plotted and the expected magnitude at different points on a section
were calculated.
A theory based on the theory of elasticity, both for steel
and concrete, and ultimate load for the concrete has been developed.
The resulta have been compared with data obtained from experimenta.
The agreement between theoretical and experimental resulta is within
reasonable leeway.
iii
NOTATION
Rectangular co-ordinates
Airy stress function
Normal components of stress parallel to the x-y axes
Shearing stress component in rectangular co-ordinates
Unit elongation in the x-y directions
Unit shear strain
Modulus of elasticity
Modulus of rigidity
Poisson's ratio
Strain in concrete and steel
Ultimate strain in concrete
Working, yield, and ultimate stress
Steel area
Displacement components in x and y co-ordinates
Opera tor
l2.
Clear span
Thickness of beam
Vertical load
iv
a,b
Width of load V
Total tensile force
Total compressive force
Any positive integer
2L
Length of beam
Strain energy
\in
'L
~J c<~
.. ,..ocf Parameters
Constants corresponding to any value of n
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
A deep bearn may be defined as one whose depth to span ratio is
;?-
1/ 2
often arise in the construction of shear walls, anchor blocks in prestressed concrete beams, foundation walls, sides of bins, hipped plate
construction, etc.
To
These assumptions
are:
1
a)
b)
c)
( 0"'-x.. -
'V <S'"(t)
2
2
the stress distribution near the loads is more complicated, but this
deviation from the straight line law is of a local type."
It becomes clear that the assumptions are valid as far as
distribution is considered away from localized force.
Venant's Principle
In view of Saint
beams are such that to neglect the effect of vertical stresses will
cause serious errors.
However
2)
3)
4)
satisfied.
Object of Investisation
The purpose of the investigation of stresses in deep beams was
to develop a theory for the design of reinforced concrete deep beams
within the elastic limit.
material.
The application of the theory was carried out on a steel plate
loaded on the two ends of the top edge and supported at two points at
the bottom edge.
to reinforced concrete deep beams loaded at the centre of the top edge
and supported at the ends of the bottom edge.
4
CHAPTER 2
HIS TORY
The departure of stresses in deep beams from that of a straight
line distribution is well known.
In 1932 Dischenger
presented a paper
which dealt with stresses in a continuous deep beam using Fourier series.
The Portland Cement Association 5 adopted the same procedure and published
a paper dealing with the design of deep girders and added the solution
of simply supported deep beams.
beams with equal spans.
Bay
I~section.
blacks.
United States Navaf2research investigators found the same type
of failure in monolithic concrete beams.
tension in the ends of prestressed concrete beams had been known for a
long time, these failures were of interest as they showed a marked departure from the pattern of stresses in theories and methods proposed by
authoritles in the field."
Lambert
13
14
CHAPTER 3
THE ORY
Since stresses in
the z direction are zero at the boundary and very small inside the
boundary, hence they are neglected.
fied by c::> x,
r:::sy,
lt is assumed
a)
Equi librium
b)
Compatibility
Equilibrium
t
~
H---~
T~-t
~+?~?fiC. d.~
'et~
Similarly in y direction
(2.)
+
It is obvious now that there are two equations and three
unknowns.
consideration of displacements.
b)
Compatibility
, ~4
..!
--l
t o - - - - clx. + ll + U. d..~
direct strain
-t'Xt.~
l:>liC..
( p:,l- .2.)
= change in length
original length
cu.
~'X..
'?JI/
(4)
"bj
+
Differentiating ( 5)
with respect to
::x. o.nc:l
~.
and substituting
~)
-.5 '1-x..'j
( 4)
and
~v
?Pu.
!)X.'ilj
-\-
~ :>l
'"t'l~'j
..St..,c..
")~ ~j
""4!1~~
(6~)
<!:tl o:;
"'t.:;
l>x.. ...
'')
-t. :x...
-t.~
j_
_})~,:~)
(o-"lt.
E.
:-
( 0";:~ - \)a-x.)
"{"(.a
... -G1-
l'X.j
where
2(1+Y)
Equation (6b) then can be written after substitution and taking the
1
factor out
(7tA.)
= - ( "?J-a.IS'7(.
>-x,.2.
+ ~e-l!
'"b(t:a.
(7c)
~ri
-e ~2
o-~
1;..~
(<!a.)
-= -Gi
a. x..a.
'='
(~b)
?JJ-:l.Jtf
--.
a.)C.aa
(SC)
=0
or
(8d)
=0
method~ 6
One by minimizing
10
long and laborious involving Fourier series and hyperbolic function,
whereas the numerical method is direct and calculations are much simpler
on account of computer analysis.
Both
methods were used and it was found that the computer is much more accurate
and very fast.
17
In 1918, Liebmann
19
gave a method
of iteration for algebraic equations and showed that the procedure did
converge to the required resulta.
Wolf
20
in 1926.
H. Marcus
21
22
in 1922. 11
23
The development
11
and its application in recent times is due to R.V. Southwell and his
colleagues.
Consider a curve
iation of
= f(x,y),
keeping y constant.
The var-
distance apart.
The
(~~
(~\:,
(~~)o\
~
( da.$2S )
'dx.l- \
95o - 2 )/5
s:zSs
gz..
('kA)
12
If differentiation is carried out twice again then
('le)
=
~
In a similar consideration of
tive of
with respect to y is
{FIC. tl)
20 ~O
8 ( ~~
16z. + (13
ti,
-t
p,,_ +~~)
(94,)
The point 0
This is shown in
13
12- 2
10 2
( I=IG
5 )
~'
with respect to y,
~'s
= ~flf
0 '2.
fictitious values of
derivative of
values of
L~
14
The magnitude of these values is calculated by extrapolation, i.e.
These values of
understood.
Stress Function Inside the Boundary
Once the values of the stress function are obtained outside
and on the boundary, then it is only necessary to write reduced finite
difference biharmonic equations for every cross point.
The usual method of getting such points is to divide the surface
of a bearn into small square nets.
considerations.
It is
apparent that while reducing the fourth order partial differential equation to a finite difference equation, a better approximation to slope will
be achieved if the two points are.taken closer.
affect the second, third and fourth derivatives.
size of the net the greater the accuracy.
Consequently it will
Thus the smaller the
This will be
as (9h).
15
i)
ii)
computer analysis, or
relaxation.
Computer Analysis
This method of solving simultaneous equations is called Gauss
Jordan with interchange.
Thorpe
24
(The
complete, the invert of the given matrix is obtained with the last
column consisting of the values of the stress function.
Usually the
This is
Such an operation
This
16
The method discussed will converge very slowly as residues
from adjacent points will always alter the value of the central points.
It was found that it takes several weeks to solve this problem by this
method if sixty simultaneous equations had to be solved.
Whereas the
computer takes only a few minutes to solve these equations and only one
or two days are required to program.
('')
17
at the ends.
b)
Only the
~plication
Centre
Due to symmetry only half of the beam will be considered.
Boundary Values of
=0
to x
=L
a~
=0
18
<:r"<j-
~~
=0
(14)
0 1'-'J.
Also
7.i/
i;rj;
::'
~S)
=0
<:Jx2!)d
Therefore
of/;
::
a x...
c,
(1')
C1 -x. +Ca
(17)
He nee
t~
'L
bt
2L
2L
(1=1&
Shifting the
c1
= c2 = 0
7)
ozS
"dx...
~
fi)
and c
will vanish.
Therefore
('<aa.)
(le 6)
(liC)
19
From x
=L
= L,
- a to x
=0
( lCf)
(z.o)
Substituting values of
at
=L
- a
i.e.
fl) -
and
the values of c
expression of
and c
are obtained.
gives
0~
"O(f =
pJ -
-aas
?(.a.
- at:L T
From x= L, y = 0 to y
.)
= 2L
(22. (:4)
~x.. + L (L.-t:t)
ott-
0,1:
JL (L -~ :z.
( 2..2.. ';)
2at
also
7~
0~
od
~
ox...
{tJ
-$RJ
'"2>~2..
=::'
-;:,2{25
? >,..:?:> 'j
"::!
(:.&3t.!)
(2.3!,)
c,
( 2.<q <!.)
C:;,-
(Z~")
~(/ +
c,
(2\e)
d.X.
and
0~
'OJ
are,
20
of/>
v
- -1::.
ad
ox..
p5
Va.
=:
i"E
b(.?J
a~
= _y_
1::.
a-x-
va.
21::
Stress function at x = b to x
= L,
= 2L
0"'~
-e~
;j
T~
and
(.26c:t)
= c''1
(2~6)
( 2G<:)
':
c'l
,PJ
c,:..
c,o
(2GtJI..)
At x = L, y = 2L
C::>/i
~~
o,t5
=.
0~
(:na.)
_y_
(27b)
t;
va.
-21::.
{?.7c)
Therefore
-T
og
0~
fJ -
(28a)
-~x..
!:
( .z. e~
-rf(L-v
(28':)
21
At
=b
From x
=0
to x
(2.tfh)
(2.9')
= b, y = 2L
ML
a X-
!!/)__
O::J
rj;
At x
=b
v
= - bt
v x..+
- ___
bt
c,,
( .3ob)
-- + c,, x. -r
= -v
bt
x_2.
2.
c,2.
constants c
11
(2t1a)
t:
.:.
o_y
~)
orjJ
(L -
1:
-e~
a x..
J!.f?_ +
and c
12
Hence c
11
and c
12
~~ to
"a
obtain the
can be found.
Therefore
- - ;{_
1::
0
( 31 b).
( ~\C).
Thus the stress function at the boundary is solved and this is a true
value.
Suitable dimensions of a square deep bearn are selected.
are,
These
22
= 72 inches
length
height
= 2L
thickness
2L
72 inches
= 4
inches.
up.
4=
tby
o.
4v
as
61
to
66
since
Similarly the same will be true for the top values of " outside
the boundary.
is -
So it is a reasonable approximation
61
23
~6
~1
0.000
-15
r/JII
-1
!4-a
-1-5
~i3
~/
-t
~-3
-J./5
t-8
-M5
~,-&
-/.
ft.,-3
4-3
-t.S
~~
0o~
0/A:;
0.000
~116
r/J,s
NOTE,_
ALL THE COEFFlCI ENTS
y
DIAGRPd'-1
0o~
6;3
-'S'
f4;d
-15
~3
f4r3
r$1/f
~~
o.ooo
f4,,
-loS
O?.
~/
e
n = line
m = colm.
13n2
0n3
O.Ol58285v
1.5257877v
3.0020614v
4.371810lv
5.3644868v
5. 7130538v
0zm
0.01857 57 v
1. 5015204V
2. 8906860v
4.0914646v
4.9242938v
5.2196047v
~3m
o.0015784v
1.4234054V
2,6966940V
3.7372773V
4,4J03395V
4. 6736957v
~4m
-0.0277430v
1.3134433V
2,460772lv
J.3549613V
3.9296423v
4. 1283684V
~Sm
-0.0616904v
1.1901325v
2.2064910"\Y
2.9624306V
3.4321657v
J.5919532V
~6m
-0.0971681 v
1.0610407V
l.9381992v
2. 5570972v
2. 9284128v
3.0525518v
~7m
-0.1397 686v
0. 917 67 24"1
1. 6422017v
2. 1236933v
2.4012437v
2. 4921719v
~Sm
-o. aosss14 v
O. 7048650v
1.2907870v
1.6471841v
1.8394593v
L 9003674v
~9m
-o. 2841992 v
0.4782342v
O. 9104408v
1.1419568v
1.2501150v
1.2889865v
0tom
-0.3517438v
o. 2596223v
0.5299024v
o. 6433627v
0.6889928v
o. 7013269v
~llm
-0.3905918 v
0.0813901v
O.l951448v
-0.2196592v
0.2237545v
O. 2241148v
0nm
'\m
0nt
TABLE Ir
0n4
0ns
0n6
.po.
25
A Rectangular Plate Loaded at Tips and Supported at Two Points
#.j
T
H
(rf(;
sJ
=0
to x
= -L2
'
=0
cr:l
= --.:~
<=>x.
)~
-~sz)
- =
Taking
From x
~
l;l(.
From x
=0
to x
= -L2
an d~
!'>c:f are zero.
= 2L
to x =
2L +
a'l(,.~(j
(SZ. b)
26
(65)
and
"'~'X- -
- ::L -t... +
at
c~
~::
7a
j.> =
At x = (
V -x_~
2Qt;
~ =
o'L
and
4,
~
o?(.... = aj_1: (.b.-x.)
.a
:t.f:. ;(.. _ VL2.
-t2.41: .,..~ Sa~"'
~-
= 2L
and
:s! are
~
_J:.
1::
L
2
From x=-+ a
~ =0
Therefore
Tx.d
also
~
ox...
..
fJ
( .3'1~
Cs
Cs x.-
C't;
=i
( 3'7~)
+ a then solving for c
and c
(t{-<)b) .
27
(4-oej
At x
+ ~ + a, y
-
the values of
+ J... + a,
From x =
=0
y = 0 to y = H
and
(l-3b)
Therefore at x ==
~J1
and
i + J + a,
=0
The re fore
00
(~)
-o
~
':)x_ --~
1::
(44c.)
Values of
and its first derivatives are constant along the vertical edge
of the plate.
From x =
..2 +
a to x =
..2
=H
'::5~ = - :!.._
CI=
28
c10 X-
=- - -v -'X,'- +
t:ll::
Solving at x
=~ +
~.
are
p5
2.
c,,
==- -
2a 1.:
~J ~
;:,'(..
.a..
241::
:a.
(+sa)
(+s-b)
-Q~
ad
=~
At x
1>
the values of
= -
a(6
x._
~szS
a1
!l._+
(;QI:
f-.t
1::
+ 1..
t:lll;-
(-.ta. +ttJj\l ~ L
~r-!.
(b +t+A)1
t .r (b +4'2.- ~4.
L 1::
/J 2.01: a. / 8'cl/:
2..
1.
=0
From x = 0 to x =
~ ,
y =
j/J =
(4b~
29
also
c,2.
otb
ax....
-af>
- c*
?f
(471>)
~' ~; ~
at x
= ~2
=0
=
The following dimensions are taken in accordance with the
experimental set up of the steel plate analyzed theoretically.
Taking a= 3", t
= 1",
H = 12", L
= 18", ~ = 42",
~= 2"., ,f = 12".
The network of the plate and the variation of the stress function on the
boundary is shown in Diagram 2 and Table II.
~
30
uJ
-4
. t:
'Q
:!
'E
8.
"'1
~
'6..
.,"!
li\
'?
-s.
ft
'Q.
<(
ti
....
CLJ.
-J.
~
1
()
~
1
Il')
"''
Il)
1'
oL
0
<(
-
;;1)
,...
'Q
z
Ul
>
!:!
1.1.
u.
d)
LU
"
1()
.....
1
..
1
"'f
10
ii
l}.
UJ
:t
.....
'!1
...J
..
\~
1
J.
....
1
t)
"6-
:z
...1
<(
A
w
...1
:::)
0nm
n = line
m = colm.
0nt
~n2
~n3
0n4
0ns
0n6
0tm
-12.1501 v
-11.8600v
-11.8991v
-11.8501v
-11.8000v
-11. 7498v
0zm
-12.1000v
-11.3100v
-11.4010v
-11.3902v
-11.3799v
-11.350lv
0Jm
-12.0001 v
-10. 5600v
- 9. SOOOv
- 9. 5004v
- 9.0000v
- 8. 7000v
04m
-11. 9499v
- 9.9401v
- s.oooov
- 5.4995v
- 5.4939v
- 5. OOOOv
05m
-ll.SOOOv
- 9. 5200v
- 7 .OOlOv
- 5.0003v
- 3.6939v
- 2.300lv
TABLE II:
w
....
~n7
~n8
~n9
~n10
~n11
~n12
~lm
-11. 7000v
-11. 6990v
-11. 6893v
-11. 6788v
-11. 6501v
-11.6200v
~2m
-10. 9893v
-10. 7989v
-10. 6010v
-10.4986v
-10.4003v
-10.3000v
~3m
- 8.0007v
- 7.4998v
- 7.6001v
- 7.5600v
- 7.5502v
- 7.4499v
~4m
- 4.3001v
- 3.9843v
- 3. 9989v
- 4.0499v
- 4.0000v
- 4.0800v
~Sm
- 1.1993v
- 1.0102V
- 0.9968v
- O. 9932v
- o. 9909v
- 0.9703v
~nm n
= 1ine
m = colm.
TABLE II (continued)
l.o.l
N
33
Taking a= b =
Z=
9 in., and
Tabulation of values of
x - 18
11
~~
x, and
~ = 0
~- 0
~--
mv
q_.. -
1
36v
<::5i.= -
36v
= 24"
=0
= 30
.. --v
11
~~.
4
36
~ =--V
x= 3611
l'-.1.....1.....&...1....1-l.-~;._._..............,._..
l.Da.~
(J.J;f:.ua.l
(i=l(s q)
= area
26
.. -24
1
The values of
x= 2411
... .!lv
8
x= 18"
-- 32.8 v
~- 0
x= 12 11
= l2.v
8
<5ic. ... -
1
288
6"
~ .. 50
~--
2s8v
= 00 11
~ "" 54
CS...=-
288
x=
x
~lt. ..
will be
34
(PIG!D)
= area
CEN Rt
\NE
x thickness
=v.
1
i~
not in
~tress
distribution
relaxation it would take considerable time to converge due to its nonequilibrium condition.
~he
= b = 3L
is taken
and~=
L
2a = 6,
i.e. the net dimensions are still the same only the loaded areas are changed.
Loa..di~
11)
35
~a
values
0
x in inches
18
--196 v
24
3
--v
8
1
--48
v
30
3
--v
2
1
--48
v
36
=-
V.
~'~"~'"f cl'rFe.Y~
L.cO<J, ,,..
(!="tG
12)
If values
e"'~
x in inches
6V
1
--v
48
1
--V
48
.2.v
2
1
--v
96
12
45
8
18
36
= -v.
37
GHAPTER 4
EXPERIMENTS, DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
Experimenta on deep beams of different materials and different
dimensions were conducted.
1)
steel
2)
plastic
3)
reinforced concrete.
11
In the first
The second
stage was to test a steel deep bearn with strain gauges mounted on it,
This was performed since the theory of elasticity could be accurately
applied to a rnaterial like steel which is homogeneous and isotropie.
These two stages of the programme initially provided an understanding of
the stress distribution in a deep bearn, and gave sorne confidence in its
application to a non-homogeneous rnaterial.
These will be
The properties of the steel concerning the maximum stresses and modulus
of elasticity are given in the Appendix& The deep beam's dimensions are
38
!
2..
...,__ 1
' 1----
18 1
a-;.'
~a
1.-- a. -
..._,JI
r.-'///.1.1
___.
R4sut
UFFF.
...___ _ _ _ _ 4:.1!
(FIG. 12o.)
depth
of 12 inches has the dimensions of a deep beam since the ratio of depth
span
:::>.!..
2
The beam was tested under the Emery patent machine which has a range of load
from 0 to 100,000 pounds.
a rolled steel
Vf=
The maximum
load of 50,000 pounds was chosen so as to keep the stresses within the
elastic limit.
given point, therefore only the calculation for the 50,000 pound load was
38a
PLATE 1:
39
done.
must be equal to the total internat compressive force, the last stress
was calculated from this consideration.
Examination of Graph I
and the experimental curve are quite close, but the straight tine stress
distribution assumption is very erroneous.
at one point was quite erratic.
method and is possibly one of the oldest methods used to determine the
stresses experimentaly.
in abundance.
Depth in inches
Experimental
12
2450
17 50
2600
10
3050
2580
1740
1310
1250
870
- 800
- 750
-1800
-1250
- 870
-2320
-2500
-1740
- 100
- 250
-2600
TABLE III:
Finite
Difference
Straight Line
Distribution
42
It is prefer-
modulus of elasticity
2)
tensile stress
= 0.38
x 10
2
lbs/in ,
= 14,000 lbs/in 2
~\n
..
the
bearn tested had, dimensions the same as those of the steel plate tested.
The standard method of applying the stress coat and loading the specimen
was followed.
Plates 2 and 3 show the principle tensile stress distribution.
The cracks
i~~bhe
"l"#
s~ports
and
42a
PLATE 2t
PLATE 3:
43
3.
in.)~
analysed for
concrete beams both having the same dimensions but with different distribution of steel.
~~
after concrete
cracks.
The properties of the concrete material and the steel bars
were determined by conducting tests on twelve concrete cylinders and
six steel bars.
The experimental set ups of the two concrete beams are shown in Figure
13.
Test Specimen
The dimensions and the reinforcement of the two beams were
as follows:
Beam A with economical1y distributed steel (shown in Figure 17)
dimensions
reinforcement
reinforcement
Materials
a)
Concrete
The concrete used was a high strength (5,500 psi) concrete. The
maximum size of the aggregate was
/2 in.
The weights of the ingredients of the concrete per cubic foot conforming
44
0
1
~~--~~---------------Fig. 13
Set-up showing central load and supports
45
Beam B
a"
.~
1~
1i'
L
L.
1:5 ~
Gauges on Concrete
.a"
+
9'
+5''
Je"
-t-L
..,...
aa"
"'1
Fig.
14
46
Beam
Gauges on
Concrete
'li
,.J
'12.'
+
11.1
---
Gauges on
Steel Bars
--
......
...
IS
Fig.
11
15
,~.,
47
to A. S. T.M. Standards were as follows:
J f'ent
lngred
Size
Cement
680 lbs.
2 ..
Sand
35 mesh
3.
Stone
A-
1 /4
in.
610 lbs.
112
in.
910 lbs.
1570 lbs.
Water
4..
300 lbs.
c.
b)
Steel
steel used was intermediate grade with yield stress of
of 15%.
1
/4 in. in diameter.
The properties of
."
.. ,.
beams were cast by Francon Limited.
' deiivered
They were
\
surfaces were used to mount the gauges was to avoid the transverse bending
effe ct.
The strain gauges mounted on the surface of the concrete bearn
were Budd Metalfilm strain gauges type C6-1161-B with a gauge length of
1 in.
Thi s gauge length was prefe rre d in order to avoid the possibility
cemented to the surface with Bl2 cement manufactured by the Budd Company,
47a
PLATE 4:
PLATE 5:
48
Beam B
,.,./
n
Hor1ZOn tal b ar s l d.~a. a t 3" c 1c
"?2
-vz..''
.....
1
li
lt
t"'~
1!' Cover
12
Fig.
16
,,
Vel,tica1 Bars
49
Beam
Vertical
4l"
'
\.
~
v"., ~ f'-; "'7'._,.
t9
J,
1<-
711_.. jor.-
v"__,_ Ir 7''--;;. ~
"'
1,;
"'
~9
~
1/
~//
72
...
1~/
..
"':If
...
Ho
\
.~~JI'
r;,v
...
..,,-2,11
'}''
#'4''
't
T llf
4-
,J,2..
~1
:a.~
~Il
~'i..''
11('1
Fig.
17
izgntal
1 n
dia.
1.-- ba s
--.!':loo'
50
/4 in.
The
concrete beam.
~,
Whereas strain gauges mounted'on
the
The
These plates
rested on rollers which provided the rotati.on of the plate in order not
to lift the end edges of the beam and change the support conditions.
The load was applied on the plate of dimensions 24 in.x 4 in. x 2 in. at
the top and it was transferred to the beam by means of the plate.
The
SOb
PLATE 6:
PLATE 7:
51
Indicator.
The gauges were balanced by applying and releasing a small load.
The loading scale 0 - 400,000 lbs. was selected.
latter case was taken because of the manual operation of the Baldwin
Strain Indicator.
40 gauges were used and for readings of one increment 20 minutes were
required.
As the load was increased the cracks were observed.
No visible
crack was detected with the naked eye up to the load of 120 kips.
It
fact
cra~'efore
~ver
the
visible crack was across the whole thickness of the beam and extended
upwards about 15 to 18 in. from the bottom edge with increments of the
load after 120 kips.
reached about 1 to 1 1/2 in. from the top edge at the load of 140 kips.
Each increment of the load above 140 kips made this crack widen from the
bottom edge until the failure occured at the load of 185 kips when the
bars at the bottom edge broke.
Similar observations were recorded for the other beam except
that it failed at an ultimate load of 210 kips.
51a
PLATE 8:
Crack pattern of
bearn A
.,
1
1.
PLATE 9:
l'
Crack pattern of
1.
bearn B
"'
,,
52
Discussion of the Resulta
The curves of the distribution of ~ at the centre line
section and for a section 18 inches from the edge as determined by the
experimental results are compared with those determined by the finite
difference method and the straight line distribution.
These curves
Both
At
the centre line section, the curves obtained by the experimental results
and the finite difference method
C)~
have
"J)"
shape.
The magnitude of
at the top and bottom edges by the finite difference method and
~~
by straight
line distribution.
At the section 18 inches from the vertical edge the shape of
the curves by the finite difference method and the experimental results
is similar to the shape of the centre l!ne distribution of
that 3 inches near the top edge
C)~
cr~,
except
tJ~.
This
Comparison of the
53
ponding to the load of 30 kips in graph no. 2 show that the maximum
tensile stress is below the ultimate tensile stress of the concrete.
Therefore the total tensile force is taken by the concrete.
2)
The curves of
cr~
graph no. 3 show that the maximum tensile stress is approaching the
ultimate tensile stress of the concrete.
tensile force is taken by the concrete (i.e. steel does not contribute
any strength to take tensile force and could be assumed ineffective)
before the concrete cracks, is given below.
Force taken by concrete
The contribution of the steel to the total tensile force before
the concrete cracks is examined for a section at the centre of beam B.
The curve corresponding to the load of 65 kips is considered.
The tensile
Concrete -
21
x 450 x 21 x 4
18,900 lbs.
b)
Steel.
54
Stress in
lbs/in2.
18
540
27
72
2160
108
125
3750
187
178
5340
276
Bar No.
Force in lbs,.
x area
F ;;
J,.
598 lbs.
= 21
=
x 405 x 21 x 4
17,010 lbs.
The comparison of the result shows that the force taken by the steel
can be neglected before the concrete has cracked.
c)
~~
This is verified
cracked and the tensile force is transferred from this cracked section
of the concrete to the bar at the bottom edge.
The theoretical force (i.e. tensile force between the height
of the section where
cf~
530 x 4 x 1.5
3,180 lbs.
55
Centroid of tensile force
O. 7 5 in.
57,210 x
2,860 lbs.
1.5 in.
.os
This indicates that when the concrete cracks the steel bar present in
this area takes up the force and the centroid of the tensile force
changes a small amount.
of
C)(..
appreciably.
d)
~as
and the finite difference method at the centre section differ from each
other.
Therefore strain is no
57
a]
Depth in
inches
lbs/in
by
lbs/in 2 by
lbs/in
by
straight line
fini te diff.
experimental
- 95.5
- 190 .. 0
-155.0
12
- 69.0
24
36
22.0
7.5
- 34.7
3.6
5.5
8.7
- 12.8
43.5
20.0
10.0
- 26.6
61.5
76.0
60.0
48.9
70.5
100.0
165.0
210.0
b]
Depth in
inches
lbs/in 2 by
lbs/in
by
lbs/in
by
straight line
finite diff.
experimenta 1
- 48.0
- 87.5
- 91.2
12
- 35.0
- 34.1
- 28.6
24
- 17.5
36
- 11.20
- 12 .. 60
43.5
10.0
61.5
38.0
- 10.0
30.0
- 15.20
28.0
70.5
50.0
141.0
200.0
TABLE IV:
7.5
7.25
59
a]
Depth in
lbs/in
lbs/in
by
by
lbs/in
by
straight line
finite diff.
experimental
- 95.5
- 190.0
- 114.0
12
- 69.0
24
inches
22.0
36.0
- 34.7
3.6
5.7
36
8.7
12.4
48
34.7
8.1
14.2
62.5
76.5
60.0
62.4
70.5
100.0
165.0
240.0
b]
Depth in
inches
lbs/in
lbs/in
by
straight line
by
finite diff.
lbs/in
experimental
- 48.0
- 87.5
- 114.0
12
- 35.. 0
- 34.1
24
- 17.5
36
41.4
7.5
10.0
- 11.2
17.3
0.08
22.3
48
17.5
62.5
38.0
35.0
22.8
70.5
50.0
141.0
200.0
TABLE V:
G"~Distribution
by
61
a]
Depth in
inches
lbs/in 2 by
lbs/in 2 by
straight l ine
finite diff.
experimental
- 200
- 375.0
- 376.0
12
- 150
24
36
48.0
75
7.9
18 .. 9
41 .. 0
29.5
28.9
43.5
48
61.5
70.5
152
125.0
90.0
220
350.0
450.0
b]
Depth in
inches
3
12
24
36
22.0
lbs/in
by
straight l ine
- 100
75
25.0
lbs/in
by
lbs/in
experimental
- 200.0
- 236.0
74.0
89.5
16.3
26.8
24.4
31.2
43.5
24
18.0
61 .. 5
70.5
76
50.0
46.0
llO
300 .. 0
380.0
TABlE VI:
by
finite diff.
38
0
34.2
63
a]
Depth in
lbs/in 2 by
lbs/in
by
lbs/in
by
finite diff.
experimental
- 37 5.0
48.0
- 368.0
71.0
75
7.9
21.4
36
18.9
16.5
48
75
17.4
62.5
175
70.5
220
135.0
37 5.0
inches
3
straight l ine
12
- 200
- 150
24
b]
Depth in
inches
3
12
24
36
46.0
118.0
440.0
lbs/in
by
lbs/in
by
lbs/in
by
finite diff.
exper irnen ta 1
- 100
- 200.0
- 200.0
straight l i ne
75
38
74.0
16.7
16.3
24.4
62.5
23.4
48
0
38
62.5
87
75.0
64.0
70.5
110
325.0
385.0
0 .. 17
38.0
65
a]
Depth in
inches
1bs/in
by
straight l i ne
lbs/in
lbs/in
by
finite diff.
experimental
- 300
- 600.0
- 680.0
12
- 210
24
- 105
36
27.6
35.0
17 5.0
160.0
315
460.0
70.5
inches
21.5
230
61.5
Depth in
11.6
89.0
64.0
70
b]
70.0
37 .o
43.5
fs = 572.10
by
2
1bs/in by
straight l ine
finite diff.
experimental
1bs/in
lbs/in
- 150
- 300.0
- 328.0
12
- lOS
- 104.0
- 110.0
24
36
by
53
0
23.7
35.5
39.0
39.0
43.5
35
61.5
115
80.0
74.0
70.5
158
420.0
455.0
50.0
:s,
53.5
Load 95 kips
by
67
a]
Depth in
inches
by
lbs/in2 by
straight Une
finite diff.
experimental
lbs/in
lbs/in
- 360
- 67 5.0
- 823.0
12
- 270
24
- 135
36
85.0
32.5
200.0
14.0
by
33.5
50.0
43.5
70
61.5
275
185.0
fs = 11010
fs = 23110
70.5
560
650.0
fs = 59000
b]
Depth in
inches
lbs/in
by
straight l ine
lbs/in
by
lbs/in
finite diff.
experimental
- 180
- 360.0
- 218.0
24
- 135
- 131.0
- 170.0
12
68
28.7
43.0
45.0
36
by
62.5
62.5
43.5
35
61.5
138,'
120.0
- 152.0
74.0
70.5
180
540.0
455.0
69
a]
lbs/in
Depth in
inches
by
straight l ine
lbs/in
by
finite diff.
lbs/in
experimental
- 260
- 443.0
- 364.0
12
- 185
92
- 181.0
- 195 .. 0
40.0
58.5
- 450.0
58.0
- 167 .o
100.0
24
36
43.5
60
61.5
200
140.0
70.5
270
890.0
TABLE X:
Cfx..
17.5
= 10770
70
c. v
C = coefficient found by the finite difference method.
V = vertical load.
~ = allowable tensile stress (stress is linearly proportional
to strain).
Example
C :::
1
/{;;)_
Therefore
JI:
c =
4oo
""/62
l.H 00
(50)
co~crete
/6.s
The initial
the whole section will collapse, because as soon as the concrete cracks
the tensile force is transferred to the reinforcement.
A second method will be to determine the stresses on the
maximum tensile stressed section.
71
==
&; A.s
4s=
The effect of the shift of the tensile force will have either one of two
effects.
centroid will compel the point of action of the compression to move lower
down in order to maintain the externat statical moment.
There is no math-
ematical proof for the above statement but in case it did occur this
would mean that the total compressive stress distribution would be different from the one analysed.
assume that neither the point of action of the tension moves nor that of
the compression.
This will
cause the distribution of the stresses to differ from the one analysed.
A more appropriate way of placing steel will be to make use of
the fairly linear distribution of cr~ in the tension zone and provide
uniformly distributed steel..
ing that concrete has cracked in the tensile zone and the total tensile
force is taken by the steel (as discussed in Discussion of the Results).
Therefore
f::.
1s
A.s
Ji
-r = total
tensi le force.
(52)
72
centroid of the tensile force and its magnitude will remain the same as
The reinforcement for beam B was placed in the way deter-
was analysed.
mined above.
The
(5~)
bars near the neutral axis which do not take as much load as the bars
near the edges.
equations~
area~
Such distribution of the steel will give more steel at the bottom edge
of the beam and less near the neutral axis.
This
method~
although very
method~
(52).
73
part is laid as uniformly distributed steel.
spacing which varies linearly with increasing distance from the bottom
edge of the beam.
) Y2- As
Such distribution of steel ensures that the maximum stress will remain
below the allowable stress in the bar near the edge.
This can be
verified.
The steel per unit height of the beam from the bottom edge is
(53)
a.s
Therefore the steel provided by the method suggested above is 12.5% more
for the unit height from the bottom edge than as given by equation (52),
and the total amount of steel is 25% less than that provided by equation
(52).
Thus an
74
The experimental resulta show that although beam A had less
reinforcement than beam B, it was relatively stronger in ultimate loadtaking capacity.
B.
a)
b)
c)
d)
14%).
e)
The conditions (b), (c), and (d) will determine the compatibility of the strains.
75
The Strain Diagram
d..-c
t
Strain in concrete
at ultimate
Strain in steel
at ultimate
Therefore
0.14
.003
47
1.5"
= 7i).'S"""
.0065
59000 x 1030
.002
Applying one of the equilibrium equations that the total tensile force is
equal to the total compressive force
fy As
f'c x a x b
fy As
b x f~
68000
22000
3"
76
a,.
J,
.ra,,.
c
t
~- K- ~.
~
ri
1<.
Fig.
Depth of be am
18
77
The centroid of the forces in the steel bars is obtained by taking the
moment about the bottom edge.
k
23 x 1.5 + 253 x 3
23
34.5
= T x lever arm
=
Lever arm
T
d -
k - 1. 5
Externat moment
Therefore
= 12V
68,000 x 36.0
3
204 kips.
The ultimate load for this beam from the experimental resulta was 185 kips.
Ultimate Load of Beam B
The Strain Diagram
~l_
T
1
d-e
hs.
tc
Strain in concrete
at ultimate
Strain in steel
at ultimate
= 1.5
inches.
A
s
1.0 x 59,000
f'c x a x b
591000
22,000
2.6 in.
59,000 lbs.
78
The centroid of the tensile forces of the bars is, taking the moment
about the bottom edge,
=
31.0 in.
Therefore
lever arm
72 - (31.0 + 1.3)
39.7
M.R
59,000 x 39.7
B M = 12 vu 1t
59,000 x 39.7
12
200 kips
79
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS
1.
After the
This force
The high compressive strength of concrete ensures that most of the bars
yield and due to this condition the ultimate load is increased.
S.
lowest neutral axis makes the distribution of the steel in this area
simplified.
6.
Any section of concrete deep beam has very low stresses in the
is no necessity of providing steel in that area, only temperature reinforcement may be provided.
8.
below so that sudden failure of the concrete is avoided and at the same
time, the yielding of all the bars is accomplished.
9.
80
Ultimate design as used for ordinary reinforced concrete beams may be
used for deep reinforced concrete beams with low percentage of steel
81
CHAPTER 6.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
1.
studied.
3.
of deep beams.
deep beams of steel and concrete shuld be carried out for the different
conditions of boundary and loading.
6.
difference method
82
APPENDIX
The strain energy method was used to solve the stresses in the
steel plate.
will be kept general in the beginning and the specifie dimensions w-ill
be used in the expression at the final stage of the derivation of the
formula.
A deep beam can be analysed for determination of the stresses
~
T
1
/3
~----;---------------------~.0
1-'E:----
2 l.a. _____..o-1
2.L
y-axi~
are
2V
2L
=~
~if ~:
y=-~
..
:..so<(2L.:ill.-)
83
-~
where
C>(
l.L
~ 4V
L-
Cl(,
'Y\= 1
rcosc:o<(2.~2.~o..)s,"'~(AJco~~~ (oo)
.o.. L
lT'V\,
(S~
==
00
+ ( C WJ +
,B\'1 ~)
S1Yl
~Of~
h:\
(s4)
The stresses are obtained by the appropriate differentiation.
00
crx. _
A'YI ~ ~ + 2 BYI CO() Cos.~ O(i + ( Bo 0(:1~) Sr'V'II, oc~
2._ [ (
11..: 1
84
0.0
= -2 v - 2_ [C V\ Cos"'~ -t
2 L
+ c~ s.V\h 0(~
Bon() s~Vl~o(~
YI '
(60)
00
t' (
em 0( -&)
Ces!,
oc:~
'V\ ... 1
---(61)
~'
the four
= O..
(62.)
(64)
(65)
85
The investigation of the stress function shows that the
stresses at the boundary y =
x
C)~
at x
= L
= L.
+ ( BVI"'\... ~)S1'1~~+(CV\c:l'(\lj)l'\l'()
V\= 1
An'
Bn,
Cu,
equation ( ~) is
((Q1)
= 0,
y =
and y
~X.
at
('1 )
0.575
64P + 16Q + 4R + S
- 64P + 16Q - 4R + S
512P + 64Q + 8R + S
- 512P + 64Q - 8R + S
= -
3580
(67b)
1910
(67c)
= -
20000
(67d)
19500
(67)
86
= -37
Q=
12.2
= -92.2
-1030
0.57 5
Therefore <:S"'-,(.. at x + L is
L is achieved by
~~.
=+
crx..
cr~
at x
by equation (&tl).
=~
}Z)o
The
~O
+ 2_ O(V\ ~'Il
stresses at x
=~
The constants
o< 1,
0( , etc. are
a unit
thickness is given by
(701)
87
Stresses in a body are independent of the elastic constants in a simply
connected boundary.
Therefore
=0
is substituted in equation
(~~
('70~
Substituting
0''(...
~Sl$
-
-e~:a..
cr~
:rx.~
l..J_
~$2S
a "X...
- -~rf>
~x.."Set
~ 2.
2: IJ(~r
x.'- + ( ~s
CI<J"" -t2(Ciot.:>)j-}
1
cJ.~
&..a- . (1oc.)
Substituting
Li
--
o(p
~~p
is equated
88
0<::1
rn~~ LO('l ~
\{~ ~~~\
~~ J 111 6 ~=' ~~Y
.l..J\o;c: '~~\
+2.
(~f/;p
' 2 -.'>-dV\ ~ ~ &.~
-;,x.~
"a-~'a(t
V\:1
~O =
f(y) is
substituted.
The first few terms of equation (9q) will give sufficiently
accurate resulta.
wi 11 result
The first term is taken as
~
4
~
= _ J_ [~1.01.. ._ 12.'2. j_.;. Gf2.~ +
L.
(L
12 t.2:2oL'b
rpo
2.. rA.
~.:
0{"'
('72)
89
Therefore 0"':(.. is
- - '!__
L
[37. 0
\d __
J.
':j
lJ
_ o. '575]
(7&)
(51=1 )
The values of
co~puter
is available.
Horizontal Stress ~xJDbtained from Different Methods in lbs. per sq. in.
No.
Depth in inches
Finite Difference
Energy
Straight Line
Distribution
Experimental
12
1750
7500
2600
2450
10
2580
3750
1740
3050
1250
1140
870
1310
- 7 50
- 650
- 800
-1250
-1250
- 870
-1800
-2500
-4000
-1740
-2320
- 250
- 100
-2600
- 100
TABLE Xl:
92
APPENDIX
To check the design of a deep beam for its buckling load, the
approximate formula as developed by Timoshenko for a panel loaded in its
own plane and simply supported on its aides is used.
conservative results for a deep beam.
b' is given by
(11)
b' ;?0.06 L
K
where
Length
Height
H
H
L
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
= 22.2
10.9
6.92
4.23
3.45
3.29
3.40
3.68
1. 6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.7
3.45
3.32
3.29
3.40
3.32
3.29
L' =
K =
mentioned in Chapter 3:
H
= 72 11
1.0
3.29
b ' ? 0.06
;;?
H
L
72
J3.29
Il
2.3n
(b
'::
4-.o)
93
APPENDIX
PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
1.
Compression Test
Nine concrete cylinders 6 x 12 inches, cured and capped
C39-61.
lateral elongations.
A typical graph of the longitudinal strain is plotted against
the compressive stress.
stress.
The following results were obtained from the test.
Modulus of Elasticity
Maximum Ultimate Stress
Average
2.
6
= 3.8 x 10
E
<:::::i' ult
-y
5500 p.s.i.
= 0.13
Tension Test
Three concrete cylinders 6 x 12 inches, cured and strain-
gauged at the end faces were tested for tension in the Baldwin testing
machine.
5TEE L
LOA'D.
PLA\f.
~.t.--- SiANl).
95
A typical set-up is shown in Figure 20.
~X.
diameter.
c:5"t.
Tr.DL
6V
(19)
l'\ DL
t2.
corresponding to
~t
tx_ net
The total
t")(.
is determined as
therefore
-'V<S
E
on
Figure 20.
A typical graph of the ~X. and the
~net is drawn.
The
CS"" ult
E
initial
462 lbs/in
7 .s
2.0
106
3.9
97
APPENDIX
TEST OF THE
Three reinforcing
The strains
strain against the stress was plotted. This is shown in Graph 12.
The following resulta were obtained.
Modulus of Elasticity
Yield Stress
Ultimate Stress
30 x 10
0&
59000 p. s. i.
- c:5'"t(J.t =
76000 p.s.i.
p.s.i.
99
APPENDIX E
PROPERTIES OF THE STEEL USED IN THE STEEL PLATE
Six coupons
21
Modulus of Elasticity
Yie ld Stress
csa =
3
44 x 10 p .. s. i.
Ultimate Stress
CJw..t-
62 x 103 p.s.i.
30 x 10
p.s.i.
101
.APPENDIX
(SI~)
E.
(~- ))~~)
\"5X_
(.SI
(t'X..-+ ))~~)
E.
('82o)
(\-l:)
cr~
(t~ +
(1-'il)
))tx_)
taking
J)
a. q
)C
= o. 1~
b
\o
Therefore
where
and
ty
The averages of the strain on both sides of the beam are given
as tx and ty
tx
-28
+ 23
2
10
-6
= -
2.5 x 10-
b)
10 -6
102
rS
The re fore
-114 lbs/in
C)~
24
+ 20 10 6 = 22
= - 163 2=
63 10- 6
x 10-
x 10- 6
= -113
36 lbs/in
13
-114 - 56
\5x_""
cs-x_
+ 12 10-6 = 12.5
x 10
-6
-85 x 10-6
S. 7 lbs/in
at 36 inch depth
4 - 4
2
~~
c:s;_ at
-42 - 7
2
-25.5
-12.4 lbs/in
48 inch depth
From the stress-strain graph of the concrete in tension corr-
esponding to a strain of -4
~
6"x... at
-14.2 lbs/in
60 inch depth
CS""K.. at
corresponding to
==
16
72 inch depth
\5"')(..
240 lbs/in
corresponding to
106
103
Finite difference method
=
The first suffix of
second the column.
The
11
""
5.7130- 12 +5.7130
36
=- 240 lbs/in
v = -0.574 v
2
72
x_ at 12 inch depth
~~=
=
~~
-22 lbs/in
72
at 24 inch depth
a-~=
=
~~
= -o.os3
.0088 x 72
-.0209 x 72
-.0192
at 36 inch depth
3.5919- 6.1051 + 2.4921
36
-8.7 lbs/in
ISX..=
=
~
x 72
at 60 inch depth
1.2889 - 1.4026 + 0.2241
36
2 -
0 11 x 72
104
=
c>~
45 .. 5 lbs/in
at 72 inch depth
~~
-
0.2241 - 0 + 0.2241
36
v 2
0.448
v
72
The details
(S+)
Therefore
thickness
depth.
12V x y
1 xbxd 3
12
12 x 30000 x y x 12
4 x 72 x 72 x 72
cs;.l.+ . . crtl~-
69 p. s. i ..
-34.7 p.s.i.
0
105
34.7
p.s.i.
69.0
_p.s.i.
105 p. s. i.
106
REFERENCES
1.
Hooke, R. "De Potentia Restitutiva" 1678 1 as reported by S. Timoshenko in History of Strength of Materials, I, p. 18,
1953.
2.
Timoshenko,
s.
4.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Habe1, A., "Zwei Spannungsaufgaben des Bunkarbaues", IngenieurArchiv., Vol. 5 1 no. 4 1 p.265-274, 1934.
11.
Geer, E., "Stresses in Deep Beams", A.c.I. Vol. 311 Pt. 2 1 p.651,
1959-1960.
12.
u.s.
u.s.
107
14.
15.
16.
c., z.
17.
Runge 1
18.
19.
20.
Wolf,
21.
22.
Bencky, H.,
F., z.
z.
p.s8, 1922.
23.
Timoshenko,
s. and Goodier,
J.,