ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 92-S37
High-Strength Concrete Deep Beams with Effective Span
and Shear Span Variations
by Kang-Hai Tan, Fung-Kew Kong, Susanto Teng, and Lingwei Guan
Nineteen reinforced concrete deep beams with compressive strengths in the
range of 41 MPa ≤ fc′ ≤ 59 MPa (6000 psi ≤ fc′ ≤ 8600 psi) were tested
under two-point top loading. All the beams were singly reinforced with
main steel percentage ρ = 1.23 percent and with nominal percentage of
shear reinforcement ρv = 0.48 percent. The beams were tested for seven
shear span-depth ratios a/d, ranging from 0.27 to 2.70, and four effective
span-depth ratios le /d, ranging from 2.15 to 5.38. Test results indicate that
le /d has little influence on the magnitude of the failure load. But for beams
with a/d ≥ 1.00, the flexural failure mode becomes dominant with increas-
ing le /d.
The test results are compared with predictions based on the current ACI
Building Code. The comparisons reported in this paper will provide an
added assurance to designers that the deep-beam provisions in the ACI
code, though essentially based on concrete strengths of less than 41 MPa
(6000 psi), will insure safe designs for higher strength deep beams. How-
ever, the ACI code tends to be rather conservative, as shown by comparison
to the Deep-Beam Design Guide issued by the Construction Industry
Research and Information Association, London. Nevertheless, the ACI code
has the important advantage of being easy to use.
Keywords: building codes; deep beams; deflection; diagonal tension; high-
strength concrete; shear strength; spans; strength; tension; web reinforcement.
Reinforced concrete deep beams have useful applications
in tall buildings and foundations. With the robust growth of
construction work in many Southeast Asian countries, deep
beam design is now a subject of considerable relevance in
the region. Over there, ACI 318-891 is a major design docu-
ment, particularly as the current British Code BS 81102 does
not cover deep beam design, and the new Eurocode EC23,4
makes only very brief references to the subject. The investi-
gation reported here is one of several deep beam projects
recently initiated at Nanyang Technological University in
Singapore.5,6
In the ACI code, the shear strength Vc for deep beams is
given by ACI Eq. (11-30). This equation is related to the corre-
sponding equation for ordinary beams, namely ACI Eq. (11-6),
by the multiplying term (3.5 – 2.5(Mu /Vud)). However, ACI’s
Eq. (11-6), and hence the code's Eq. (11-30) for deep beams,
are essentially based on the many test results7 on beams with
compressive strengths in the range of 14 to 40 MPa (2000 to
6000 psi). Recent test programs8-13 have been conducted to
study the applicability of the two equations for beams made
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995
TECHNICAL PAPER
of high-strength concrete. Research from References 8
through 10 indicates that ACI Eq. (11-6) overestimates the
influence of concrete contribution for high- strength
concrete beams with a/d > 4. However, there has been rela-
tively little information on the applicability of ACI Eq. (11-
30) and Eq. (11-31) for higher strength concrete deep beams.
Deep beams in this context refer to beams with a/d ≤ 2.7.
This test program seeks to assess the suitability of ACI
Eq.(11-30) and Eq.(11-31) for deep beams with strengths
exceeding 40 MPa (6000 psi). For this purpose, all the test
beams had a/d ≤ 2.7 and compressive strength fc′ exceeding
40 MPa, with the introduction of two main variables: shear
span-depth ratio a/d and effective span-depth ratio le /d. The
effective span refers to the distance between the two centers
of supports (Fig. 1). The importance of the first parameter a/d
on the ultimate strength of deep beams has been confirmed by
many researchers,8,10,14 but that of le /d has received less atten-
tion. Earlier work by Manuel, Slight, and Suter15 has indicated
that, although failure load is not significantly affected by le /d,
diagonal and flexural crack widths are influenced.
Test results in the present program were compared with
predictions based on the ACI code,1 the CIRIA Guide,16 and
Zsutty's proposed equations,17,18 as well as Hsu-Mau's
explicit equations.19,20
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Concretes of strengths exceeding 40 MPa are increasingly
being used in the construction industry in many Southeast
Asian countries. The literature provides further empirical
evidence on the behavior of concrete deep beams with
compressive strengths in the range of 41 MPa ≤ fc′ ≤ 58 MPa
(6000 psi ≤ fc′ ≤ 8600 psi). Tests show that a/d has a
significant influence on the ultimate strength. On the other
hand, le /d has a qualitative influence on the failure mode of
deep beams. For the same a/d, as le/d increases, the flexural
ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No. 4, July-August 1995.
Received June 29, 1994, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right © 1995, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion will be published in the May-June 1996 ACI Structural Journal if received
by January 1, 1996.
395

Kang-Hai Tan is a senior lecturer in the Division of Structures and Construction,
Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. He obtained his BSc and PhD
from the University of Manchester, England. After employment with Ove Arup & Part-
ners, England, he took up his present appointment in 1990. His research interests
include concrete deep beams and structural sandwich panels, a research paper on the
latter having received an award from the Institution of Structural Engineers, UK.
Fung-Kew Kong is Professor and Head of the Division of Structures and Construc-
tion at NTU. Professor Kong is the Alternate Chairman of Singapore's newly formed
Structural Engineering Practice Technical Committee, which oversees the drafting of
all future structural standards and codes of practice in Singapore. Formerly Professor
of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England, he was
a member of the British National Committee for Theoretical and Applied Mechanics
of the Royal Society, London. Professor Kong's publications include several award-
winning papers on structural concrete and the Handbook of Structural Concrete,
which he co-edited with ACI past president Edward Cohen and Professors R. H.
Evans and F. Roll.
ACI member Susanto Teng is a lecturer in the Division of Structures and Construc-
tion, NTU. He received his PhD from the University of Iowa in 1991 prior to joining
NTU. His research interests include structural concrete deep beams, time-dependent
effects and cracking in structural concrete members, and behavior of concrete struc-
tures under dynamic loads.
Lingwei Guan is a lecturer in the Division of Structures and Construction, NTU. He
obtained his BE and ME from Northern Jiaotong University, Beijing, China, and his
MS and PhD from Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey. His research is on rein-
forced concrete deep beams and the performance assessment of nonload- bearing
building facades.
failure mode becomes predominant. This investigation has
given added assurance that ACI Eq. (11-30) and Eq. (11-31)
are safe and convenient design tools, while rather
conservative. The CIRIA Guide of the U.K. consistently
yields very good agreement with the experimental results,
though it is not as easy to use as the ACI code.
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Specimen details
The test specimens (Fig. 1) consisted of 19 simply
supported beams 500 mm (19.7 in.) deep and 110 mm (4.3 in.)
wide. The effective span le varied between 1000 and 2500 mm
(39.4 and 98.4 in.). The beams had a tension steel area As =
628 mm2, providing ρ = 1.23 percent. All the beams had 10-
Fig. 1—Typical specimen details.
396
mm (0.4-in.) stirrups, placed at 300-mm (11.8-in.) centers,
giving a web reinforcement ratio ρv = 0.48 percent [ρv = Av /
(bs)], and a shear resistance of 1.78 MPa (260 psi). This
satisfied the minimum design shear resistance of 0.34 MPa
(50 psi), as given by the equation in the ACI Building Code,
Clause 11.5.5.3. At locations of loading or support point, a
local reinforcement cage was provided to prevent premature
crushing or bearing failure.
Two variations were introduced, viz., shear span-depth
ratio a/d ranging from 0.27 to 2.7, and effective span-depth
ratio le /d ranging from 2.15 to 5.38. Based on the range of a/d,
the test beams were divided into seven series, as shown in
Table 1, which also explains the beam notation.
Materials
In the concrete mix design, ordinary portland cement was
used in conjunction with 10-mm chippings to achieve an
aggregate-cement ratio of 3.52. The water-cement ratio was
kept at 0.31 with the addition of admixtures. The beam
specimens and the 100-mm (4-in.) British standard cubes
were cured in the same condition for more than 28 days. In
Table 1, the cube compressive strengths fcu were obtained on
the same day as the beam test. The cylinder compressive
strengths fc′ were calculated from the fcu values using the
formula proposed by Neville21
fc′ = [0.76 + 0.2log10(fcu /19.59)]fcu (1)
Two sizes of hot-rolled steel bars were used for reinforcement:
20-mm (0.8-in.)-diameter deformed bars for the main longi-
tudinal reinforcement and 10-mm (0.4-in.) plain bars for the
stirrups. Their respective yield strengths were 504.8 and
375.2 MPa (73 and 54 ksi).
Test procedure
Vertical deflections were monitored by the LVDTs. At
each load increment, the test data were captured by a data
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995
 Table 1—Details of specimens
Shear Effective fcu, fc′,
Beam* span a span le a/d le /d ρ, % ρv, % MPa MPa
A-0.27-2.15 125 1000 0.27 2.15 1.23 0.48 67.80 58.84
A-0.27-3.23 125 1500 0.27 3.23 1.23 0.48 60.20 51.62
A-0.27-4.30 125 2000 0.27 4.30 1.23 0.48 62.55 53.85
A-0.27-5.38 125 2500 0.27 5.38 1.23 0.48 66.20 57.31
B-0.54-2.15 250 1000 0.54 2.15 1.23 0.48 64.80 55.98
B-0.54-3.23 250 1500 0.54 3.23 1.23 0.48 53.88 45.68
B-0.54-4.30 250 2000 0.54 4.30 1.23 0.48 62.55 53.85
B-0.54-5.38 250 2500 0.54 5.38 1.23 0.48 61.65 52.99
C-0.81-2.15 375 1000 0.81 2.15 1.23 0.48 59.70 51.15
C-0.81-3.23 375 1500 0.81 3.23 1.23 0.48 52.03 43.96
Fig. 2—Total load versus midspan deflection for le/d = 5.38 D-1.08-2.15 500 1000 1.08 2.15 1.23 0.48 56.57 48.20
(beam notation as in Table 1).
D-1.08-3.23 500 1500 1.08 3.23 1.23 0.48 52.20 44.12
D-1.08-4.30 500 2000 1.08 4.30 1.23 0.48 55.08 46.81
D-1.08-5.38 500 2500 1.08 5.38 1.23 0.48 56.38 48.03
logger and automatically stored. All the beams were tested to
failure under two-point symmetric top loading. To insure E-1.62-3.23 750 1500 1.62 3.23 1.23 0.48 59.07 50.56
uniform contact between the loading points and surface of E-1.62-4.30 750 2000 1.62 4.30 1.23 0.48 52.72 44.60
the specimen, a thin layer of dental cement was applied. Both E-1.62-5.38 750 2500 1.62 5.38 1.23 0.48 53.50 45.33
surfaces of the beam were whitewashed to aid in the obser- F-2.16-4.30 1000 2000 2.16 4.30 1.23 0.48 48.91 41.06
vation of crack development during testing. Initial loading G-2.70-5.38 1250 2500 2.70 5.38 1.23 0.48 50.79 42.80
was applied at increments of 20 kN (4.5 kips) until the first *Beam notation: The series letter is given first; this is followed by a/d ratio and le/d. For
crack occurred. Subsequently, the load increments were example, A-0.27-5.38 refers to a beam in Series A, with a/d of 0.27 and le /d of 5.38.

increased to 40 kN (9.0 kips) each.

TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Table 2 lists the measured diagonal cracking strength Vcr ,
serviceability strength Vser, and ultimate strength VnTEST. The
second term Vser was defined by ACI 318-89, Commentary
Clause R10.6.4, as the limiting crack width of 0.013 in. In
Table 3, comparisons of test results with the ACI code and
design equations by CIRIA, Zsutty, and Hsu-Mau are presented.
General behavior
Fig. 2 shows the structural response of specimens with le /d
= 5.38. The trend is also typical of other le /d series. The
midspan deflection increases with higher a/d, as expected.
For the beams with a/d ≥ 1.62, the increase in central deflec-
tion is not as significant as for those with lower a/d. In
general, all beams with the same a/d had a similar order of
deflection, though, with increasing le /d, the deflection tends
to increase. The midspan deflection at failure was less than
le /200, showing that, as expected, deflection is not a problem
in deep beams.
Fig. 2 also indicates the total load (2Vcr) associated with
the first occurrence of the diagonal crack, which started at
about d/3 above the bottom face of the beam, and propagated
simultaneously toward the loading and support points. The
beams exhibited considerable strength reserve after diagonal
cracking. In Table 2, the diagonal cracking strength Vcr is
between 20 and 35 percent of the ultimate shear strength
VnTEST. Likewise, the serviceability load Vser is in the range
of 30 percent ≤ Vser/VnTEST ≤ 50 percent.
Fig. 3 shows the cracks at failure of the beams with le /d =
5.38, together with the loads at which each crack was first
observed, and the extent of the crack at each load. Those
cracks believed to be the cause of the immediate failure of
the beams are marked boldly. For all the beams, fine vertical
flexural cracks formed first, usually near to midspan. The
widths of the initiating flexural cracks were very small, in the
order of 0.04 mm (0.0015 in.). On further loading, diagonal
cracks of widths generally greater than 0.10 mm (0.004 in.)
occurred independently near the middle of shear span,
crossing the mid-depth of the beam instantly. The flexural
cracks that had formed earlier then stabilized and stopped
propagating. New inclined cracks were formed in the shear
span in the load-support direction until failure took place.
For Beams A-0.27-5.38 and B-0.54-5.38, failure was in the
shear mode, which is characteristically brittle and sudden,
accompanied by a loud noise. Concrete crushing of the
compression zone near the load point was observed for
Beam A-0.27-5.38, while Beam B-0.54-5.38 failed in the
diagonal tension mode. In both instances, horizontal cracks
initiating from two vertical end faces of the beams were
found on failure. With increasing a/d, the failure modes were
mixed, with flexure becoming more dominant. Beams D-
1.08-5.38 and E-1.62-5.38 had almost fully developed diag-
onal cracks in the shear span, but failure was delayed until
vertical flexural cracks in the constant moment region
branched upward and outward, causing a ductile collapse.
Beam G-2.70-5.38 had flexural cracks that became inclined
and joined the later-formed diagonal cracks, a mode charac-
teristic of ductile flexural-shear failure.
Table 2 shows the failure modes of the beams. Those
beams that had significant diagonal cracking but eventually
failed in flexure are labeled as “sh-flex” (for shear-flexure).
Those with significant flexural cracking but that eventually
failed in shear are labeled as “flex-sh” (for flexure-shear). In
both Series D and E beams, the failure mode changed from

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995 397

Table 2—Test results of 19 beams Table 3—Summary of predictions for VnTEST and Vcr
V cr V ser Column 2, Column 3, Column 4, Column 5, Column 6,
VnTEST, --------------- --------------- Column 1, Vn /VnTEST, Vn/VnTEST, Vn/VnTEST, Vn/VnTEST, Vc/Vcr ,
TEST TEST Failure
Beam* Vcr, kN Vser , kN kN Vn Vn mode Beam* ACI CIRIA Zsutty Hsu-Mau ACI
A-0.27-1.23 150 275 675 0.22 0.41 Shear A-0.27-2.15 0.290 0.480 0.382 0.976 1.303
A-0.27-3.23 125 275 630 0.20 0.44 Shear A-0.27-3.23 0.291 0.484 0.392 1.011 1.465
A-0.27-4.30 150 300 640 0.23 0.47 Shear A-0.27-4.30 0.352 0.486 0.534 1.070 1.247
A-0.27-5.38 200 325 630 0.32 0.52 Shear A-0.27-5.38 0.380 0.508 0.550 1.103 0.965
B-0.54-2.15 113 200 468 0.24 0.43 Shear B-0.54-2.15 0.455 0.677 0.626 1.478 1.694
B-0.54-3.23 110 190 445 0.25 0.43 Shear B-0.54-3.23 0.455 0.649 0.628 1.418 1.565
B-0.54-4.30 150 225 500 0.30 0.45 Shear B-0.54-4.30 0.451 0.622 0.580 1.369 1.247
B-0.54-5.38 170 250 480 0.35 0.52 Shear B-0.54-5.38 0.483 0.643 0.602 1.421 1.091
C-0.81-2.15 75 150 403 0.19 0.37 Shear C-0.81-2.15 0.507 0.738 0.650 1.121 2.429
C-0.81-3.23 90 140 400 0.23 0.35 Shear C-0.81-3.23 0.498 0.709 0.634 1.089 1.877
D-1.08-2.15 80 120 270 0.30 0.44 Shear D-1.08-2.15 0.628 0.952 0.901 1.286 1.845
D-1.08-3.23 70 100 280 0.25 0.36 sh-flex D-1.08-3.23 0.618 0.885 0.853 1.212 2.040
D-1.08-4.30 70 110 290 0.24 0.38 sh-flex D-1.08-4.30 0.636 0.874 0.834 1.188 2.086
D-1.08-5.38 60 90 290 0.21 0.31 Flexure D-1.08-5.38 0.669 0.886 0.838 1.196 2.457
E-1.62-3.23 75 105 220 0.34 0.48 Shear E-1.62-3.23 0.557 0.900 0.985 1.217 1.231
E-1.62-4.30 60 90 190 0.32 0.47 sh-flex E-1.62-4.30 0.664 0.984 1.114 1.358 1.462
E-1.62-5.38 40 70 173 0.23 0.40 Flexure E-1.62-5.38 0.780 1.096 1.227 1.498 2.208
F-2.16-4.30 40 70 150 0.27 0.47 flex-sh F-2.16-4.30 0.945 0.945 1.140 1.453 1.533
G-2.70-5.38 30 50 105 0.29 0.48 flex-sh G-2.70-5.38 1.038 0.867 1.485 2.102 2.080
*Beam notation as in Table 1. Mean 0.548 0.757 0.787 1.292 1.675
Standard 0.181 0.191 0.297 0.254 0.451
deviation
pure shear to flexure with increasing le /d. The associated *Beam notation as in Table 1.
diagonal cracking strengths are also smaller in magnitude
with increasing le /d.
was somewhat subjective, and this led to a scatter in vcr. The
Effective span-depth variation ultimate stresses vnTEST fall into “asymptotic” curves.
The ultimate and diagonal cracking stresses varied slightly Generally, the variation in vcr with increasing a/d is small;
with effective span-depth le /d. The ultimate shear stress with a/d ≥ 1.08, vcr seems independent of a/d. In fact, if
vnTEST in Fig. 4(a) appeared independent of le /d, but extrapolation were allowed, both vnTEST and vcr would
increased rapidly with a decrease in a/d. At a/d = 0.27 (Series converge at higher a/d. This makes sense as, with increasing
A), vnTEST was four to five times that of the value at a/d = a/d, regular beam action dominates and formation of diag-
2.16 (Series F). However, Fig. 4(b) shows little variation in onal cracks would lead to beam failure.
diagonal cracking stresses vcr with a/d.
With increasing a/d and le /d (Series D, E, and F), both COMPARISON OF TEST RESULTS WITH SHEAR
vnTEST and vcr tend to decrease. This can be explained by the DESIGN EQUATIONS
fact that, for the same a/d, the compression zone between Shear design equations
two load points is extended with increasing le /d, i.e., a longer Experimental failure loads for the test beams are compared
arch is required to transmit the load to the support points. A with predictions using the ACI Building Code,1 the CIRIA
longer moment span also results in an increase in the Guide's recommendation,16 Zsutty's formula,17,18 and Hsu-
midspan deflection under the same total load, and causes the Mau’s19,20 explicit equations. The relevant equations are
formation of wider flexural cracks. In addition, with listed in the following as Eq. (2) through Eq. (10). ACI’s
increasing a/d, the tied-arch action becomes less effective equations, and those of CIRIA and Zsutty, impose an artifi-
because of the reduced angle that the inclined strut now cial separation in the shear strength of reinforced beams by
makes with the beam axis. Thus, Beams D-1.08-3.23, D- splitting the shear contribution into two parts, namely Vc
1.08-4.30, E-1.62-4.30, F-2.16-4.30, and G-2.70-5.38 failed (concrete contribution) and Vs (shear reinforcement contri-
in a mixed mode, whereas Beams D-1.08-5.38 and E-1.62- bution). However, Hsu-Mau's equations take account of the
5.38 failed in flexure, i.e., their ultimate shear strengths were composite nature of Vc and Vs.
higher than their flexural strengths. Probably, the best known equation for Vc is ACI Eq. (11-6)
[Eq. (2) in this paper], which is the basic expression for shear
Shear span-depth variation strength of ordinary reinforced concrete beams without shear
The variations in ultimate and diagonal cracking stresses reinforcement. To calculate the concrete shear strength of
with increasing a/d are shown in Fig. 5. The determination of deep beams, ACI Eq. (11-30) [Eq. (3) in this paper] is Eq. (2)
Vcr , based on the load at the first observed diagonal crack, multiplied by the factor [3.5 – 2.5Mu /(Vud)], which takes

398 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995

 Fig. 3—Crack patterns at failure (showing also load, kN, at which each crack was
first observed and extent of crack at that load; beam notation as in Table 1)

(a) (b)

Fig. 4(a)—Ultimate stresses vnTEST versus effective span-depth ratio le /d; and (b) diagonal cracking stresses vcr versus effective
span depth ratio le /d.

account of the shear-strength reserve of deep beams after the combined nominal shear strength Vn (= Vc + Vs) shall not
diagonal cracking has occurred; this factor shall not exceed exceed 8 f c′ bd.
2.5. The ACI code restricts Vc from Eq. (2) in exceeding In the CIRIA Guide, two sets of design recommendations
3.5 f c′ bd, and Vc from Eq. (3) in exceeding 6 f c′ bd. Also, are given for the design of deep beams, viz., the “Simple

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995 399


Fig. 5—Ultimate and diagonal cracking stresses versus
shear span-depth ratio a/d.
Rules” (see Clause 2.4.2 of the CIRIA Guide) intended
primarily for uniformly loaded deep beams, and the “Supple-
mentary Rules” (see Clause 3.4.2 of the CIRIA Guide)
covering design aspects outside the scope of the “Simple
Rules.” The “Supplementary Rules” cover concentrated
loading, indirect loading, and indirect supports, as well as
locations of admissible holes in the web. The CIRIA Guide’s
equations [viz., Eq. (5) and (6) here] are essentially the Kong
et al. equations.22-24 The CIRIA Guide, however, has modi-
fied the numerical values of the coefficients λ 1 and λ 2 (see
Appendix D of the CIRIA Guide) to introduce the necessary
safety factors for design purpose.
In the results presented in Table 3, the material partial
safety factors have been removed for comparison purpose.
With reference to Eq. (5), the CIRIA Guide defines the active
height ha as the full height h or effective span le , whichever is
less. In Eq. (5), the quantity λ 1 f cu bha is a measure of the
load-carrying capacity of the concrete strut; the factor (1 –
0.35xe /ha) allows for the experimental observation of the way
in which this capacity reduces with an increase in the xe/ha ratio,
where xe is the clear shear span measured between the
support and loading point. When the load carried by the
concrete is high enough, a splitting failure is assumed to
occur, resulting in formation of the diagonal crack; the quan-
tity λ 1 f cu is a measure of the splitting strength of the
concrete.
Eq. (6) represents the contribution of steel reinforcement
to shear strength of the beam. The CIRIA Guide implies that
the beam has a tendency to fail in a mechanism in which the
end portion of the beam moves outward in a rotational
participates in the preservation of the integrity of the
concrete web, through helping to restrain the growth of the
diagonal cracks. It judges the contribution of an individual
bar by its area Ar , intercepting depth yr , and intersecting
angle θr .
Zsutty's formula17,18 has been compared with
experimental results on high-strength concrete beams in
recent years.10,12 Using dimensional analysis and statistics,
Zsutty proposed Eq. (7) for computing Vc of ordinary beams,
and Eq. (8) for deep beams. In a fashion similar to the ACI
code, Zsutty introduced a factor of 2.5 /(a/d) to Eq. (7) to
account for the strength reserve in deep beams after diagonal
cracking, and this a/d is restricted to 1.5 ≤ a/d ≤ 2.5. In
Column 4 of Table 3, the original restriction17,18 on the
concrete strength (fc′ ≤ 40 MPa or 6000 psi) is lifted for
comparison, but the computations are still subject to the
restriction on a/d, i.e., 1.5 ≤ a/d ≤ 2.5.
As stated earlier, Hsu-Mau's method19,20 employs an inte-
grated composite action of Vc and Vs, i.e., shear calculations
do not explicitly contain Vc and Vs terms. Both implicit and
explicit forms are presented in Reference 20; the explicit
form has been used in the present study [Eq. (10)].
ACI’s code equations1
⎛ V u d⎞
V c = ⎜ 1.9 f c ′ + 2500ρ w ---------⎟b d (2)
⎝ Mu ⎠ w
⎛ Mu ⎞ ⎛ V u d⎞
V c = ⎜ 3.5 – 2.5 ---------⎟ ⎜ 1.9 f c ′ + 2500ρ w ---------⎟ b w d (3)
⎝ V u d⎠ ⎝ Mu ⎠
A 1 + l n ⁄ d⎞ A vh ⎛ 11 – l n ⁄ d⎞
V s = -----v- ⎛ -------------------
- + -------- ⎝ -----------------------⎠ f y d (4)
s ⎝ 12 ⎠ s2 12
CIRIA Guide’s equations16
⎛ x ⎞
V c = λ 1 ⎜ 1 – 0.35 ----e-⎟ f cu bh a (5)
⎝ h a⎠
where λ1 = 0.44 for normal weight concrete and 0.32 for
lightweight concrete
n
100A r y r sin i θ r
2

motion about the loading point. Thus, the lower a reinforce- Vs = λ2 ∑ --------------------------------------- bh a
bh a
2
(6)
ment bar intersects the diagonal crack, the more effective it i= 1

would be in restraining this rotation. Hence, in Eq. (6), Vs is

proportional to yr , the depth at which the typical web bar where λ2 = 0.85 N/mm2 for plain round bars and 1.95 N/mm2
intersects the critical diagonal crack. Though the Guide’s for deformed bars.
formulation is conservatively restricted to xe /h ≤ 0.7 (or a/d
≤ 0.90 equivalent for the 19 test beams here), Eq. (5) and (6) Zsutty’s equations17,18
are applied to the entire range of specimens with shear span-
depth ratio 0.27 ≤ a/d ≤ 2.7, for comparison purpose. Note f c ′ρd⎞ 1 ⁄ 3
V c = 2.174 ⎛ ------------
- bd (7)
that the CIRIA Guide acknowledges the fact that the laws of ⎝ a ⎠
equilibrium do not discriminate between bars labeled as
“web reinforcement” and those labeled as “main reinforce-
V c = ⎛ ---------
2.5-⎞ [Eq. (7)] (8)
ment.” Hence, Eq. (6) accepts any reinforcement bar that ⎝ a ⁄ d⎠

400 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995

Fig. 6—Ratio of shear strength predictions to test results (Vn /VnTEST).

A v f yv d It is clear that the ACI code [Eq. (2) through (4)] has the
V s = ---------------
- (9)
sV lowest standard deviation of 0.181 among the four methods
(Column 2 of Table 3), and the predictions are conservative.
Hsu-Mau’s explicit method19,20 The results demonstrate that the ACI code predictions are
safe for deep beams with 41 MPa ≤ fc′ ≤ 58 MPa (6000 psi ≤
fc′ ≤ 8600 psi), even though Eq. (2) through (4) were obtained
2 2
V n = 0.5f c ′ K ( ω 1 + 0.03 ) + K ( ω 1 + 0.03 ) + 4 ( w 1 + 0.03 ) ( ω t + 0.03 ) from tests on beams with lower concrete strength.7 The study
× bdv ≤ 0.3bdv (10) also shows that the predictions are generally very conserva-
tive, with a mean of 0.548; the conservatism reduces with
where increasing a/d and with increasing le/d.
⎛ ρf ⎞ ⎛ ρv ft ⎞
Fig. 7 shows the reserve capacity (1 – Vn/VnTEST) as well
ω 1 = ⎜ -------l ≤ 0.26⎟ , ω t = ⎜ --------- ≤ 0.12⎟ and as the relative Vc /VnTEST and Vs /VnTEST components in
⎝ fc ′ ⎠ ⎝ fc ′ ⎠
Vn/VnTEST using the ACI equations. The reserve capacity
2d varies widely, from a maximum of 70 percent at the low end
--------v of a/d = 0.27 to practically zero at the high end of a/d = 2.70
h 0 < a ⁄ h ≤ 0.5
K= d 0.5 < a ⁄ h ≤ 2 (Beam G-2.70-5.38). Within each of the beam series A
----v- --- ⎛ --- – ---⎞
4 h 1
h 3 ⎝ a 2⎠ a⁄h>2 through G (i.e., for each constant value of a/d), the relative
0 shear reinforcement contribution Vs /VnTEST increases with
le/d. This increase of Vs /VnTEST can in fact be predicted from
Comparison of shear design equations Eq. (4); since the test beams had no horizontal web reinforce-
Table 3 and Fig. 6(a) through (d) compare the four design ment (i.e., Avh = 0), then Vs must increase with the clear span-
methods for the test beams. The material safety factors for depth ratio ln/d. Referring again to Fig. 7, it can be seen that
concrete and steel reinforcement have been set to unity for the increase in Vs /VnTEST is more marked for those beam
comparison purpose. The ratio Vn/VnTEST, where Vn is the series with higher a/d. In other words, the strength reserve (1
calculated strength and VnTEST the measured strength, is an – Vn /VnTEST) decreases as a/d increases. It is worth noting
indication of the agreement between the two. that the ACI code recommends that Eq. (4) be used only for

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995 401

Fig. 7—ACI predictions of Vc and Vs.
beams with ln/d ≤ 5, thus restricting the value of Vs. In Fig. 7,
such a high Vs value occurs in Beam G-2.70-5.38; reference to
Table 3 shows that Vn/VnTEST, i.e., (Vs + Vc)/VnTEST, is, in
fact, 1.038, so that the “strength reserve” is –3.8% in this case.
A comparison of Vc /Vcr for the ACI code is included in
Column 6 of Table 3. Basically, Vcr is the diagonal cracking
strength of the test beams with nominal web reinforcement.
However, it has been shown9,10 that for beams with nominal
web reinforcement, the Vcr values obtained are similar to the
diagonal cracking strengths of singly reinforced beams with
no web reinforcement. For an ordinary beam without web
reinforcement, the failure load corresponds to Vcr , as the beam
cannot mobilize any shear reserve after diagonal cracking. Vc
in Eq.(2) was developed by ACI on this basis. But for a deep
beam, there is a significant shear strength reserve after diagonal
cracking has occurred. Using the ACI code for Vc /Vcr yields an
average value of 1.675, which is close to the ratio of the
imposed limitations of 6 f c′ bd [Eq. (3) for deep beams] to
3.5 f c′ bd [Eq. (2) for ordinary beams]. This experimental
comparison gives some added assurance of the validity of the
imposed restrictions on Vc in the ACI code.
The CIRIA Guide [Eq. (5) and (6)] gives an average mean
of 0.757 for Vn/VnTEST and achieves the second lowest stan-
dard deviation of 0.191 (Table 3, Column 3). Unlike the ACI
code, the CIRIA Guide does not use the parameter le /d;
hence, using the CIRIA equations, Beams A-0.27-2.15 and
A-0.27-5.38 would have exactly the same shear strength if
the concrete strengths had been the same. This also helps to
explain why the Vn/VnTEST ratios did not fluctuate widely
with the le /d ratio when Vn was calculated from the CIRIA
Guide. Note also that CIRIA’s predictions are conservative;
the only exception is Beam E-1.62-5.38,. This is despite the
402
fact that the CIRIA equations are intended for a/d ≤ 0.90.
However, more results in the higher range of a/d are needed
before any firm recommendations can be given.
Zsutty’s predictions [Eq. (7) through (9)] give a mean of
Vn/VnTEST close to 0.787, but the standard deviation is the
highest among the four methods considered (Table 3,
Column 4). For beams with a/d ≥ 1.62, the predictions are
unconservative, although Eq. (8) is intended to be valid up to
a/d < 2.5.18 This suggests that Zsutty’s equations may not be
suitable for beams with fc′ > 40 MPa (6000 psi) and a/d ≥ 1.6.
Hsu and Mau’s19,20 explicit equations [Eq. (10)] with a
standard deviation of 0.254 tend to overestimate the shear
strength, even for beams at a/d = 0.27 (Table 3, Column 5).
With increasing a/d, the overestimation becomes more
pronounced. However, Hsu and Mau suggest that the
implicit iterative version would yield better accuracy, but
this is not considered here.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the test results and their comparison with the
design equations, the following conclusions can be made:
1. ACI’s code Eq. (11-30) and (11-31) can be used for
designing deep beams with concrete compressive strengths
in the range of 41 MPa ≤ fc′ ≤ 58 MPa (6000 psi ≤ fc′ ≤ 8600
psi). The equations can be very conservative at the low end
of a/d and this conservatism reduces with both increasing a/d
and le /d. Overall, ACI's code strength predictions gave the
lowest standard deviation among the four methods. This
means that, used with suitable safety factors, the ACI code
will consistently give very good results.
2. CIRIA's predictions are also conservative, but with a
higher mean of predicted to tested shear strength of 0.757.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995
The standard deviations indicate that the equations are reli- REFERENCES
able and conservative. As a refinement, designers can use the 1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-89/ACI 318R-89),” American
CIRIA Guide for a more economical design than the ACI
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 pp.
code. The range of a/d can be extended to include a/d ≤ 1.08; 2. “Structural Use of Concrete—Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and
as for higher a/d, it tends to be unconservative Construction (BS 8110),” British Standards Institution, London, 1985.
3. Zsutty’s equations gave the highest standard deviation 3. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1, General Rules and
among the four methods considered here. In their original Regulations for Buildings, English Edition, British Standards Institution,
London, 1992.
form, they are nonconservative and are not suitable for
4. Narayanan, R. S., Concrete Structures: Eurocode EC2 and BS8110
beams with fc′ ≥ 41 MPa (6000 psi) with a/d ≥ 1.62. Compared, Longman, London, 1994, 152 pp.
4. Hsu and Mau’s explicit equations overestimate the shear 5. Kong, F. K.; Teng, S.; Maimba, P. P.; Tan, K. H.; and Guan, L. W.,
strength of beams with fc′ ≥ 41 MPa (6000 psi). The mean of “Single-Span, Continuous, and Slender Deep Beams Made of High
predicted to tested shear strength is 1.292. Modifications are Strength Concrete,” High-Performance Concrete, SP-149, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1994, pp. 413-432.
required to make them suitable for higher strength concrete.
6. Siao, W. B., “Strut-and-Tie Model for Shear Behavior in Deep Beams
5. The shear span-depth ratio a/d has a significant influ- and Pile Caps Failing in Diagonal Splitting,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 90,
ence on the ultimate strength but only a marginal influence No. 4, July-Aug. 1993, pp. 356-363.
on the diagonal cracking strength. For all beams considered, 7. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 426, “Shear Strength of Reinforced
the diagonal cracking strengths are between 20 to 35 percent Concrete Members,” Proceedings, ASCE, V. 99, No. ST6, June 1973, pp.
1091-1187; reaffirmed in 1980 and published by ACI as “Shear Strength of
of the ultimate strengths. Reinforced Concrete Members (ACI-ASCE 426R-74).
6. The effective span-depth ratio le /d has a qualitative 8. Nilson, A. H., “Design Implications of Current Practice on High-
influence on the failure mode, especially for beams with a/d Strength Concrete,” High-Strength Concrete, SP-87, American Concrete
≥ 1.0. For the same a/d, as le /d increases beyond 3.23, the Institute, Detroit, 1985, pp. 85-118.
beams tend to fail in the flexural mode. For a/d < 1.0, the 9. Elzanaty, A. H.; Nilson, A. H.; and Slate, F. O., “Shear Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Beams Using High-Strength Concrete,” ACI
shear strength is practically independent of the le/d variation. JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 290-296.
10. Ahmad, S. H.; Khaloo, A. R.; and Poveda, A., “Shear Capacity of
CONVERSION FACTORS Reinforced High-Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 297-305.
1 mm = 0.039 in.
1 mm2 = 0.00152 in.2 11. Ahmad, S. H., and Lue, D. M., “Flexure-Shear Interaction of Reinforced
1 kN = 0.2248 kips High-Strength Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 4,
1 MPa = 145 psi July-Aug. 1987, pp. 330-341.
12. Mphonde, A. G., and Frantz, G. C., “Shear Tests of High- and Low-
NOTATION Strength Concrete Beams without Stirrups,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings
a = shear span measured from center to support to center of loading V. 81, No. 4, July-Aug. 1984, pp. 350-357.
point 13. Roller, J. J., and Russell, H. G., “Shear Strength of High-Strength
Avh = area of shear reinforcement parallel to flexural tension reinforce- Concrete Beams with Web Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 87, No.
ment 2, Mar.-Apr. 1990, pp. 191-198.
Ar = area of reinforcing bar 14. Smith, K. N., and Vantsiotis, A. S., “Shear Strength of Deep Beams,”
As = area of main longitudinal reinforcement ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 3, May-June 1982, pp. 201-213.
Av = area of shear reinforcement 15. Manuel, R. F.; Slight, B. W.; and Suter, G. T., “Deep Beam Behavior
b,bw = beam thickness Affected by Length and Shear Span Variations,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceed-
d = effective depth ings V. 68, No. 12, Dec. 1971, pp. 954-958.
dv = effective depth of shear element, taken as 0.9d in Eq. (10) 16. CIRIA, “CIRIA Guide 2: The Design of Deep Beams in Reinforced
h = overall height of beam Concrete,” Ove Arup and Partners, Construction Industry Research and
ha = active beam height (the lesser of h or le) Information Association, London, 1977 (reprinted with amendments, 1984).
fcu = concrete cube compressive strength 17. Zsutty, T. C., “Beam Shear Strength Prediction Analysis of Existing
fc′ = concrete cylinder compressive strength Data,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No. 11, Nov. 1968, pp. 943-951.
fl = steel stress in horizontal direction
18. Zsutty, T. C., “Shear Strength Prediction for Separate Categories of
ft = steel stress in vertical direction
Simple Beam Tests,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 68, No. 2, Feb. 1971,
fy = yield strength in reinforcement
pp. 138-143.
fyv = yield strength of vertical reinforcement
19. Mau, S. T., and Hsu, T. T. C., “Shear Strength Prediction—Softened
le = effective span as measured from center-to-center of support points
Truss Model,” Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, F. K. Kong, ed., Van
ln = clear span measured face-to-face of supports
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990, pp. 157-181.
s2 , sh = spacing of horizontal web reinforcement
s, sv = spacing of vertical web reinforcement 20. Mau, S. T., and Hsu, Thomas T.C., “Shear Strength Prediction for
V = shear force Deep Beams with Web Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 84, No. 6,
Vc = calculated nominal shear strength provided by concrete Nov.-Dec. 1987, pp. 513-523.
Vcr = measured diagonal cracking strength 21. Neville, Adam M., “General Relation for Strengths of Concrete
Vn = nominal shear strength (= Vc + Vs) Specimens of Different Shapes and Sizes,” ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V.
Vs = calculated nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement 63, No. 10, Oct. 1966, pp. 1095-1109.
VnTEST= measured ultimate shear strength 22. Kong, F. K., and Chemrouk, M. “Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams,”
Vser = measured serviceability load (ACI 318-89, Section 10.6.4) Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams, F. K. Kong, ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold,
vcr = measured diagonal cracking stress (= Vcr/bd) New York, 1990, pp. 1-20.
vn = measured ultimate shear stress (= VnTEST/bd) 23. Kong, F. K.; Robins, P. J.; Singh, A.; and Sharp, G. R., “Shear Analysis
ρ, ρw = longitudinal steel ratio (= As /bd) and Design of Reinforced Concrete Deep Beams,” Structural Engineer
ρv = shear reinforcement ratio (= Av /bsv) (London), V. 50, No. 10, Oct. 1972, pp. 405-409.
xe = clear shear span measured from face of support to face of loading 24. Kong, F. K.; Robins, P. J.; and Sharp, G. R., “Design of R/C Deep
point Beams in Current Practice,” Structural Engineer (London), V. 53, No. 4,
yr = depth at which typical web bar intersects critical diagonal crack Apr. 1975, pp. 173-180.

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 1995 403