UDC 624.012.45: 624.072.

F. K. Kong,"
MSc, PhD, CEng, MICE,
P. J. Robins,?
BSc, PhD, Shear analysis and
A. Singh,S
MPhil, BSc

G. R. Sharp,@
and
design of reinforced
BSc
*University lecturer in engineering,
University of Cambridge.
tSystems engineer,
International Computers Ltd., London.
Senior site engineer,
concrete deep beams
Tarmac Construction Company,
Wolverhampton.
§Researchstudent
civil
inengineering,
University of Nottingham.

Synopsis T h e proposed formula

Animprovedformula,intendedforthedesignofice,is
presented for estimating the shear strength of reinforced
concretedeepbeamsand for designingtheirwebrein-
forcement. Analysis and design examples are given.
Notation
b = breadth(thickness) of beam
D = overall depth of beam(Fig 1)
ft = cylinder splittingtensilestrength of concrete
L = simplespan of beam(Fig 1)
uw = concretecubestrength
x = clear shearspandistancebetweenloadblocksat sup-
port and loading point (Fig 1)
Pw,?b = web reinforcement ratio, being the ratio of the volume
of web steel to the volumeof concrete in a beam.
(Othersymbols,usedinparticularformulaeinthepaper,are
defined in the lists immediately following such formulae.)
Introduction
In the March1972 issue of Concrete1 a formula was pro-
posed for estimating the ultimate shear strength of re-
inforced concrete deep beams loaded at the top. The
formula was based on tests to destruction carried out on
40 normal weight concrete deep beams reinforced with
plain round mild steel bars and 38 lightweight concrete
deepbeamswithhighyielddeformed bars2J94. In ex-
plaining the basis of that formula, it was pointed out1
that the clear-shear-span/depth ratio x/D (Fig 1 ) could
havean importanteffectonshearstrength.However,
in the previous tests 2,394 the span L was constant and
was only 762 mm (30 in) so that it was not practical to
vary the clear shear span x , which was therefore kept
constant. Hence, a change in the depth D automatically
changed both the x/D and the LID ratios, with the result
that the effects of the x/D ratio could not be isolatedl-4.
Since then, another series of 57 deep beams has been
testeds, and in these recent tests, spans of up1524 to mm
(60 in), i.e. twice those used previously, were used, mak-
ing it possible to study the effects of the variable x/O.
Also, these 57 beams included twelve which were made
of normalweightconcretereinforcedwithdeformed
bars, providing data not previously availablel-4.
Forty-five of the 57 recent tests were carried out on
lightweight concrete .beams for two reasons: 1. It has
beenfound3 thatconclusionsdrawnfromtestson
normal weight concrete deep beams cannot be assumed
to beapplicabletolightweightconcretedeepbeams,
while a literature survey has shown that very little test
dataonthelatter areavailable. 2. It isreasonableto
expectthat, inthenottoodistantfuture,reinforced
concrete designers will be forced by circumstances to
rely increasingly more on lightweight aggregates.
A further examination of the previous test results2Jp4 i n
thelightoftherecent tests5 has revealed that,while
the broad conclusions previously made are correct, two
revisions are desirable in the previous formulal: 1 , The
x/D ratioshouldbeexplicitlyallowedfor,and .2,the
concrete cylinder splitting tensile strengthft, rather than
the cube strength uw, shouldbeusedintheformula,
because the concrete contribution to the ultimate shear
strength is much more directly related to ft than to uw.
Consequently, the previous formula1 was revised take to
the form:
n
Thethreenumericalcoefficients Cl, C2 andC3were
then determined by least-square analysis, in which the
results of both the78 previous tesfs2J94and the 57 recent
testss were included. The revised formula then becomes:
n
= %for two-point top loading
2
where
Quit istheultimateshearstrengthofthebeam, in
newtons (Ibf).
W2 is the ultimate shear load, in newtons (Ibf), com-
puted from the above formula; in the case of two-
point top loading, as in Fig l , W2 = 2&t.
C1 is an empirical coefficient equal to 1.4 for normal
weight concrete and 1.0 for lightweight concrete.
C2isanempiricalcoefficientequalto 130 N/mm2
(18900 Ibf/in2) for plain round bars and 300 N/mm2
(43500 Ibf/in2) for deformed bars.(Note ,-Previouslyl,
because of lack of test data, a grossly conservative
value of C2 was proposed for normal weight beams
with deformed bars. Also, the additional data ob-
tained from the recent testss have shown that C2
depends primarily on the type of reinforcement.)
ft is the cylinder splitting tensile strength, in N/mm2
(lbf/in2), or 0.1 times the cube strength uw if ft i s
not available.
b is the breadth or thickness of the beam, in mm (in),
D is the overall depth of the beam, in mm (in).
A is the area of the individual web bar, in mm2 (in2)-
for the purpose of this equation the main longitudinal
bars are also considered as webbars.

THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 0 OCTOBER 1972 0 No 10 0 VOLUME 50 405

 y is the depth, in mm (in), measured from the top of f i g 2 showsaplotofthemeasuredultimateshear
the beam, at which an individual bar intersects the loads, W1, and the computed shear loads, "2, both for
line joining the inside edge of the bearing block at the beams tested at Nottingham and for other beams
the support to the outside edge of that at the loadingtested elsewhere7.8 whichfailedin shear. Theline
point (Fig 1). W1 = W2, inclined at 45" to the W1 and W2 axes, is also
shown. It can be seen that, apart from a few exceptions,
the agreement between computed and measured values
is reasonably good. It is appropriate to point out that
the previous formula1 was quite satisfactory when applied
to the 78 beams previously tested. However, because it
I did not allow for the variable x/D, it was too restricted
for wider applications. Also, in the revised formula here
l presented, the empirical coefficientsC1 and C2 are based
on 135 tests (as against 78 tests previouslyl), and no
doubt they could be further improved as more test data
become available, in, say, two years' times.
In using the above formula for concentrated loads,
x/D willbedeterminedfromthepositionoftheload
and the size of the bearing blocks, as shown in Fig 1;
foruniformlydistributedtoploading, it issuggested
that x/D should be taken as L/(4D).
/ mainlongitudinalsteel
Limitation of the formula
The formula is based on the tests described in Appendix
II; as a result its application is subject to certain limita-
tions:
1. It should be applied only to deep beams under top
Fig l . Meanings of symbols
loading condition; static loads only are covered.
a istheangle(Fig 1) betweenthebarbeingcon- 2. The x/D ratio should not depart widely from the test
sidered and the line described in the definition of y range of 0.23 t o 0.70. In this connection, it is appro-
priatetopointoutthatthoughpublishedliterature
anddesigncodesgenerallyrelatedeepbeam be-
haviour to the LID ratio, the authors believe that the
x/D ratio, rather than the LID ratio, is the important
n is the total number of web bars, including the main parameter.
longitudinal bars, that cross the line described in 3. The main longitudinal reinforcement in each test beam
the definition ofy. Thus, the quantity C A ( y / D ) sin2a was anchored at its ends to steel blocks, as a pre-
is to be summed for nallbars. cautionarymeasureagainstbondfailure.Boththe
The formula iseasy t o apply, as can be seen from the United States ACI Building Codelo and the European
worked examples at the end of this paper; both y and a ConcreteCommittee'sInternationalRecommenda-
can be calculated or measured from a drawing. tions'l emphasize the importance of the anchorage of
thelongitudinal steel. Theauthorshaverecently
~.
800- obtainedtest data5 which seem tocontradictthe
Nottlngham tests
(Ref 2,3,4
l above-mentionedcoderecommendations.However,
i
e

+ Nottlngham(Reftests 5) these data are still subject to further examination and

700 - Ref 7 )

// /
de
Fhlvaand
Sless( analysis, and confirmation tests may be requiredg. I n
A Ramakrlshnan and ( Ref 8 )
Ananthanorayono
the meantime, it is suggested that the formula should
beappliedonlywherepositiveanchorageispro-
600 - vided for the main longitudinal reinforcement.

Worked examples
500 - ( A ) Analysis example: to compute the ultimate shear load
of beam 15-30 of Reference 3 (see Fig 3 )

e
LOO-
l
300-
I
y =214mm
200 - y 5 = 316m

y4=4 8mn
1oc-
y3= 52(
/
1 I I v I I I I ~,=622
-L
L I I 1 I I I

100 200 300 coo 500 600 700 y1 = 724mm

Computed
ultlmate
loads W2 I k N 1 f

Fig 3. Comparison of computedandmeasuredultimate

loads Fig 3. Deep beam in analysis example

406 THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER n OCTOBER 1972 n NO IO n VOLUME 50

 From Fig l and Table 1 of reference3: 3000 kN
ft = 35.6 kgf/cm2 (506 Ibf/in2), i.e.3.49 N/mm2;
I
4
I

T
b = 76.2 mm (3 in); D = 762 mm (30 in); x/D = 0.23; width b
I
A, = area of 16 mm (+ in) diameter main longitudinal bar = 300mm
= 201 -1 m m2 (0.307 in2) ;
bearingblock:
A2 through A,;
= area of 10 mm (# in) diameter horizontal web bar 300mm x 300mr
= 78.5 m m2 (0.1 10 in2) ; D=3 m
A9 and A10
= areaof 10 mm (+ in)diameterverticalwebbar
I
= 78.5 m m2 (0.1 10 in2) ;
By measurement from a drawing (Fig 3):
Y1 through YlO
= 724, 622, 520, 418, 316, 21 4, 112, 38, 600 and 170 1000k
mm N 2000kN
respectively (28.5,24.5,20.5,16.4,12.4,8.4, 4.4, 14, -L=3m 4
23-6 and 6.7 in respectively);
(a> Dimensions
and
loading
a1 through a8 = 77O;
a9 through a10 = 13";
Hence, in SI units,
Quit = 1.0(1 - 0.35 X 0.23) X 3.49 X 76.2 X 762

+ 300 210
A
sin&
762
= 186300f122700N
= 309000N
Computed ultimate load W2 i s
W2 = 2 9 u ~ t= 618 kN
From Table 2 of reference3, the measured ultimate load 16mmstirrups&Omr#,
1
c
W1
W1 is 56 900 kg = 558 kN; therefore - = 0.9 in thiscase. t:
W2
(In British units, ( b ) web reinf orc ment
Quit = 1.0(1 - 0.35 X 0.23) X 506 X 3 X 30 Fig 4. Deep beam in design example.
10

+ 43500 2f A sink
dl is the effective depth - mm (in)
D is the overall depth - mm (in)
Thus, assuming thatdl = 2-8 m, the design equation is
= 41 900 + 25 800 Ibf = 67 700 Ibf (2000 kN) x (1000 mm) = 0.87 x Ast x (0-4 kN/mm2) x
Computed ultimate load W2 = 2&t = 135 400 Ibf. From (2800 mm - 600 mm)
Table 2 of reference 3, the measured ultimate load W1 is .: Ast = 2612 mm2.
125.6 kips; therefore W1/W2 = 0-93. Nofe: The discrep- This areaofsteelcanbeprovidedbyusing 6 No.
ancy between the answer of 0.93 here and that of 0.90 25 mm diameter bars (2950 mm2) in t w o layers of three,
when SI units are used arises from the fact that the bar giving dl of 2800 mm.
diameters of 16 mm and 10 mm are only the nominal SI Havingthussatisfiedtheflexuralrequirement,the
equivalents of the British sizes of # in and 8 in respec- next step is to design the web reinforcement. First, the
tively.) shear strength contribution of the concrete and of the
main longitudinal reinforcement is calculated from the
(B) Design example proposed equation:
A deep beam of width b = 300 mm and depth D = 3 m,
is to be designed to support a working load of 3000 kN
applied to the top surface at a distance of 1 m from the
centre line of a support, Fig4(a). The beam has a simple
Quzt (conc.) =
( 1 - 0.35
2
- ftbD

(wherethesummationtermappliesonlytothemain
+ 300 x C'
A pin24

span of 3 m, and is made of lightweight concrete with a longitudinal reinforcement)

cylinder splitting tensile strength ft of 3.2 N/mm2. De-
formed bars of 400 N/mm2 0.2 per cent proof stress are
t o be used as reinforcement.
2800
The first stage of the design is the calculation of the + 300 X 2950 X -X sin2 77"
3000
mainlongitudinalsteelarearequiredforflexure.The
flexural design of deep beams is not the subject of this = 3400000 N = 3400 kN
paper; however, a recent critical study 12913 of the meth- This gives a working factor of safety against shear
ods* proposed by the Portland Cement Associationl4, collapse of 3400/2000, i.e. 1.7. Assuming that the desired
by the European Concrete Committee11 and by Uhlmannls factor of safety is 2.0, a suitable system of web reinforce-
has led the authors to suggest that, for design purpose, ment can be designed. Fig 4(b) shows an arrangementof
the moment of resistance M should be calculated from horizontal stirrups. Four are spaced at 60 mm centres
M = 0.87 Ast fu (dl - 0-20) - N mm (in4 bf) fromthemainreinforcement,andtheremainderat
where Ast isthe areaofthemainlongitudinalsteel 300 mm centres. The web reinforcement contribution to
required to resist bending- mm2 (in2) the shear strength is given by
fv is the yield stress or the 0.2 per cent proof
stress of the main steel - N/mm2 (Ibf/in2)
*Neitherthe ACI BuildingCodenortheBritish Draft UnifiedCode Quit (web steel) = 300
gives explicit guidance on the flexural design of deep beams.

THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 0 OCTOBER 1972 0 No 10 0 VOLUME 50 407

 c
11 proposed formula, included tests to destruction carried
1 out on 135 simply supported, rectangular deep beams
= 300 A x sinf77" y (Fig 5). A constant 76.2 mm (3 in) beam thickness b was
used, and the span/depth ratios LID and the clear-shear-

(where
2y = y1+ .
y 2 . .y11 can be determined by meas-

urement from a drawing, and shown to be19 790 mm)

= 1850A N
span/depth ratios x/D ranged from 1 t o 3 and 0-23 to 0.7
respectively.BothnormalweightconcreteandLytag
lightweightconcrete wereused.Thenormalweight
concrete had an aggregatelcement ratio of 5.7 by weight
and cylinder splitting tensile strength ft of the order of
3 N/mm2 (nominal 450 Ibf/in2); the lightweight concrete
For a factor of safety of
2.0, had an aggregatelcement ratio of 2.3 by weight, a den-
Quzt (conc.) + Quzt (web steel) = 2 x 2000 kN sity of about 1750 kg/m3 (nominal 110 Ibf/ft3) and ft of
3400 kN + 1.85 A kN = 4000 kN
the order of 3.5 N/mm2 (nominal 500 Ibf/in2).

.:A = 324 mm2

Use 16 mm diameter web stirrups (402 mm2) providing
a calculated factor of safety of
3400 + 1-85 X 402 = 2.06
2000
In this design example, horizontal web reinforcement
hasbeenchosenforthepurposeofillustratingthe
method.Othersuitablearrangementsmightwellhave
been adopted. An appraisal of the relative efficiency of
differenttypesofwebreinforcementisgivenelse-
where2Jp4.

Acknowledgement
The paper is based on a further evaluation of research
experimentspreviously
carried
out
Nottingham
at
University under Dr. F. K. Kong's supervision. Sincere
thanksareduetoProfessor R. C. Coates,BSc(Eng),
PhD,
CEng,
FIStructE, FICE,
MIMechE,Head
of
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Notting-
ham, for encouragement and facilities for these experi-
ments. Sincere thanks are also due to Professor H. A. R
dePaiva,PhD,MSc,HeadofDepartmentofCivil
EngineeringandactingVice-president,Universityof
Calgary, for extremelyvaluablecommentsanddis-
cussions during the early stages of the work.

Appendix I
Some useful observations
The following testobservations2-5, which form the basis
of theproposedformula,areusefulinthedesignof
deep beams:
1. The ultimate shear strength of a deep beam is made
up of two parts: the contribution of the concrete and
that of the web reinforcement.
2. Theconcretecontributionincreaseslinearlywitha
decrease in the x/D ratio, and is more closely related
to the cylinder splitting tensile strength ft than to the (Fig5;right-hand-sidecolumn)anadditionallongitu-
cube strength uw.
3. The potential diagonal crack is approximately the line
joining the inside face of the load-bearing block at
the support to the outside faceof that at the loading
point, i.e. it is inclined at cot-1 (x/D) to the horizontal.
For uniformly distributed load, x/D may be taken as
Ll(4D).
4. The more nearly a web bar is perpendicular to the
diagonalcrack,themoreeffective it is in resisting ratio of the volume of web steel to that of the concrete
shear; its effectiveness also increases with the depth
at which it intersects the diagonal crack.
5. Withinpracticallimits,ultimateshearstrengthis
independent of the yi,eld stress of the reinforcement.
6. For the purpose ofc&ulating the contribution of the
web reinforcement to shear strength, main longitudinal 300 N/mm2
bars should also be considered as web bars.
Appendix II :
Scope of the experimental work
The experimental work, which formed the basis of the
Fig 5. Details of the test beams. (Furtherdetailsare
given in references 2,3, 4, 5).
Five principal types of web reinforcement were used
(Fig 5): 7, vertical, 2,horizontal'3, orthogonal,4, horizontal
near the beam soffit and 5, inclined. In 10 test beams
dinalbarwasprovidedwhichwasterminatedwithin
the shear span. For ordinary beamsl6,it has been pointed
out that such an additional bar could reduce ultimate
shear strength. Little research data are available on deep
beams, thoughtheauthors'tests haveindicatedthat
such terminations of the longitudinal bars are probably
muchlessharmfulindeepbeamsthaninordinary
beamsl7. The web reinforcement ratiopweb, defined as the
in a beam, variedfrom zero to about0-025;pW,b, as defined
above was useful in studying the cost-effectiveness of
thevarioustypesofwebreinforcement.Bothplain
roundbarsanddeformedbarswereused,andtheir
yieldstrengthswereapproximately of theorders of
(nominal 45000Ibf/in2)
and 400 N/mm2
(nominal 55 000 Ibf/in2) respectively. The main longitu-
dinal bars were anchored at their ends to steel blocks,
to prevent possible anchorage failure.
Thebeamsweretestedunderstatic,two-pointtop
loading, applied in cycles of increments and decrements.

408 STRUCTURAL
THE ENGINEER 0 OCTOBER 1972 L7 No 10 0 VOLUME 50
Midspan deflexions were measured with a dial gauge, ofdeepbeams in shear’, ASCEProceedings, Vol. 91,
compensation beingmade for support
settlements. No. ST5, October 1965, p. 19-41.
8. Ramakrishnan, V. and Ananthanarayana, Y., ‘Ultimate
Crack widths were measured with a hand microscope of strength of deep beamsin shear’, ACI Proceedings, Vol. 65,
20 magnifications,andcrackpatternswererecorded. No. 2, February 1968, p. 87-98.
To facilitiate crack observation, the beams were cast in 9. Sharp, G. R., ‘Reinforced concrete deep beams with open-
linedformworkandwerewhitewashedbefore testing. ings,’ (Provisional title),PhD thesis, University of
Nottingham.
A grid mesh was drawn on the beam surface to establish 10. ACI Committee 318, Buildingcoderequirementsfor re-
the locationof t h e cracks. inforced concrete: ACI 318-71. Detroit, American Concrete
Further details of t h e experimental work are given in Institute, 1971 (Section 12.4).
references 2 t o 5 inclusive. 11. Comite EuropeenBeton-Federation lnternationale de la
Precontrainte, Infernational recommendafions for fhe design
and construction of concrete sfrucfures-Appendix 3 :deep
References beams, Prague, June 1970, p. 19.
l. Kong, F. K. and Robins, P. J., ‘Shear strength of reinforced 12. Robins, P. J., ‘R.C. deep beams studied experimentally and
concrete deep beams’, Concrete, Vol. 6, No. 3, March 1972, by the finite elementmethod,’ PhD thesis, University of
p. 34-36. Nottingham, October 1971.
2. Kong, F.K., Robins, P. J. and Cole, D. F., ‘Web reinforce- 13. Malmby, C. E., ‘Deep beam design with particular reference
ment effects on deepbeams’, ACI Proceedings, Vol. 67, to the United States ACI Building Code and the European
No. 12, December 1970, p. 1010;1017. CEB-FIPRecommendations’, BSc thesis, University of
3. Kong, F.K. and Robins, P. J., Web reinforcement effects Nottingham, April 1972.
on lightweight concrete deepbeams’, ACI Proceedings, 14. Portland Cement Association, Designofdeep girders:
Vol. 68, NO. 7, July 1971, p. 514-520. Concrete Information No. ST66, Chicago, 1946.
4. Kong, F.K., Robins, P. J., Kirby, D. P. and Short, D.R., 15. Uhlmann, H. L.B., ‘The theory of girder wlalls with special
‘Deepbeams with inclined web reinforcement’, ACI Pro- references to reinforced concrete design , The Sfructural
ceedings, Vol. 69, N6.3, March 1972, p. 172-176. Engineer, Vol. 30, August 1952, p. 172-181.
5. Singh, A., ‘Static and repeated loads on lightweight con- 16. Evans, R. H.and Kong, F. K.,‘Shear design andBritish Code
crete deep beams’, MPhil thesis, University of Nottingham, CP114’, The Structural Engineer, Vol. 45, No. 4, April 1967,
May 1972. p. 153-1 58.
6. ACI ad hoc Board Committee, ‘Concrete-Year POOO’, ACI 17. Kong, F.K. and Singh, A., ‘Diagonal cracking and ultimate
Proceedings, Vol. 68, No. 8, August 1971, p. 581-589. loads oflightweight concrete deep beams’,ACI Proceedings,
7. de Paiva, H. A. R. and Siess, C.P., ‘Strength and behaviour Vol. 69, No. 8, August 1972, p. 513-521

m book reviews
Members are reminded of the services of the Institution’s Library, which holds
some 5OOO volumes on structural engineering practice, large numbers of pam-
phlets,papersandissues of approximately 100 journals,aswellassomerare
books. Bibliographiesare available from which reading selections may be made
either by personal call or by post. Assistance can also be given in technical
inquiries.

Applied
plastic
design in steel, by made to the current AlSC Manual, it is Crosby Lockwood, 1971). 616 p, S8, SBN
Robert 0.Disque.(NewYork,London: unlikely to be very popularin this country. 0 258 96824 9.
VanNostrandReinhold, 1971.) xi, 243 p, A. COULL In 1971 aninternationalconferencewas
f7. organizedby the University of South
As befitsabookwrittenbythechief WalesandMonmouthshire in conjunc-
engineerofthe American Institute of Critical path methods in construction tion with the Institution of Structural
Steel
Construction,
the
presentation practice, by James M. Antill and Ronald Engineers.
throughout is aimed at the practising W.
Woodhead, 2nd
ed. (Chichester: The 38 paperspresented to thecon-
engineerratherthanthestudentofthe John Wiley, 1970.) xii, 414 p, €7. ferenceconstitutethecontentsof this
subject. This bookdiffers from the first edition book.Beingacollection of independent
The book contains essentially a series printed in 1965 in that the subject matter paperstherecannot,ofcourse,beany
of step-by-step procedures for the design hasbeenrearrangedandenlarged. relationship between them, and the book
ofarangeofstructuralforms. After an There are four new chapters devotedto thereforeappearssomewhatdisjointed.
introductorychapterdealing with the schedulingandresourcelevelling,the The papers do not attempt to tell the
underlying principles of the plastic design evaluationofworkchanges and delays, readerhow to designbridges, but give
method which result from theunique theintegrationofprojectdevelopment informationon the latestresearchand
properties of steel, the treatment follows andmanagement and the consideration analytical techniques. This book is there-
a logical progression of topics, continu- of CPM as a system. fore an essential source of reference for
ous beams, combined bending and axial A specification for the use of CPM in those actually engaged on the design of
loads, single-storey braced and unbraced practice has been included as an appen- bridges.
frames, multi-storey braced frames, con- dix. Another appendixdiscusseslinear Many of the papers deal with the various
cluding with auseful discussion ofthe graphtheoryand its relevance to CPM methods of analysis,suchasthose in-
oftenoverlooked but important practical networks. volving the concept of the finite element
problem of the design ofconnections and James M. Antill hasbeen in the con- or finite strip, and frequent reference is
details. A set of appendixes is provided, struction industry for 40 years,and is a made to computerorientatedsolutions.
giving
useful
data
on
specifications, Fellowofthe Institution ofEngineers, Much of the theory is corroborated bythe
sectionalpropertiesandother
design Australia. He is Consulting Construction results of laboratory tests
and some
aids.Afeatureofthebook is thelarge Engineer in Sydney,New South Wales. papers deal entirely with research.
number of worked examples. Ronald W. Woodhead is a Professor of The latterpartofthebookincludes
Sincethe
fundamentals are
treated CivilEngineering at the university of somemorepracticalaspectsofdesign,
rathersuperficially,andmanypractical Illinois in chargeofthe Construction andone
or two chapters are
purely
design formulae are quoted with little or EngineeringandManagementProgram. descriptive.
no explanation of their derivation, the book Formerlyhewasat the Universityof The forms of construction dealt with
will beofgreatervalue to theengineer New South Wales. He is a member of the include flat slabandcellularbridges,
with some knowledge of the subject. American SocietyofCivilEngineers. prestressed
and
composite construc-
The book is auseful addition to the tion, orthotropic steeldecksandcable-
literature on plastic design
steel
of stayedstructures. The controversial box
structures.However, since the whole Developments in bridgedesignand
treatment is orientedtowardsAmerican construction, ed.byK.C.Rockey,J.L.
practice, with frequentreferencesbeing Bannister
and H. R. Evans. (London: continued on page 422

THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IJ OCTOBER 1972 No 10 C VOLUME 59 409