Concrete Beam With Narrow Supports

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders © 2008 ASCE
One-Way Shear in Wide Concrete Beams with Narrow Supports
Authors:
Adam S. Lubell, University of Alberta, 3-028 NREF, Edmonton, Canada, Tel: 780-492-8083
alubell@ualberta.ca
Evan C. Bentz, University of Toronto, 35 St. George St., Toronto, Canada, Tel: 416-978-4608
bentz@ecf.utoronto.ca
Michael P. Collins, University of Toronto, 35 St. George St., Toronto, Canada, Tel: 416-978-
5906 mpc@ecf.utoronto.ca
ABSTRACT
Wide reinforced concrete beams are frequently used as primary structural members in buildings
or bridges, to support floor loads and to transfer forces from discontinuous walls or columns
above. In these roles, these critical members may in turn be supported on walls extending across
the full width of the beam, or on narrower columns. While punching shear capacity on a
perimeter around the column must be checked in the latter case, design code provisions require
that one-way shear capacity be assessed for a cross-section encompassing the full width of the
beam for both the wall and column support configurations. There was concern that this full-
width shear area approach may lead to poor predictions of one-way shear strength, due to local
geometry influences at the wide-beam-to-narrow-column connection.
An experimental program on 8 large-scale shear-critical reinforced concrete beams is
presented, where the support or load width, relative to the member width, was a primary test
variable. The results show that the one-way shear strength was moderately reduced as the
support width to beam width ratio decreased. This influence occurred for members without shear
reinforcement and for members with a moderate shear reinforcement ratio. A capacity reduction
function was developed to account for this influence on one-way shear strength, and its
application demonstrated with a design example.
INTRODUCTION
In the design of member connections, it is often advantageous to use different member widths to
minimize reinforcement conflicts and reduce overall congestion. Common practice is to use
beams which are wider than the supporting columns, since formwork is simplified in this
arrangement [Lorenz and Trygestad, 2005]. Figure 1a illustrates a wide beam and narrow
column configuration in an Edmonton, Alberta parkade. The geometric differences in member
width at this connection will create a disturbed force flow in the beams since they are not
supported over the entire width. In a related problem, a wide beam or large transfer slab may be
subjected to concentrated loads that are not evenly distributed over the entire member width.
The ACI 318 code of practice requires that the shear capacity of slabs and beams be checked
against both “beam action” where the critical section extends in a plane across the entire width of
the member (i.e. one-way shear) and “two-way action” where the failure involves punching out
of a truncated cone around a concentrated load or reaction (see Figure 1b). Note that while one-
way action is assumed evenly resisted by the full member width, no account is made of the three-
Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

Downloaded 25 Apr 2012 to 129.128.216.34. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
dimensional flow of forces necessary to achieve this distribution. Thus, it is important to

understand the influence of the supported- or loaded-width, relative to the member width, on the
one-way shear capacity taken on a cross-sectional basis. For this case, there is no current
guidance in ACI 318 as to whether the average applied shear stress is a suitable measure to
evaluate structural adequacy, relative to an average shear resistance.
While 3-D influences must be directly considered immediately adjacent to the load or
support, the members in Figure 1 would be treated as one-way spanning elements in the context
of the overall structural plan and thus a 2-dimensional response for the overall member would
often be assumed during design. In the present study, an approach is considered to account for
the decrease in one-way shear capacity that occurs from the geometric discontinuity when using
a 2-dimensional, sectional basis for analysis. Shear capacity evaluation is taken at the traditional
ACI 318 section located d from the face of the support where the design shear force, including
self weight, is the largest.
P
L
section for one-way shear
bx section for two-way shear
cx
bw bs cy
d
d d 2
FIGURE 1 – (a) WIDE BEAM TO NARROW COLUMN CONNECTION IN PARKADE;

(b) CRITICAL SECTIONS FOR SHEAR
STATE OF THE ART

Several research programs have previously examined the influence on one-way shear capacity
resulting from loads or supports that did not extend across the full width of the member.
Leonhardt and Walther [1964] tested a series of 500 mm wide slab strips, with full-width
supports and two loading locations representative of one “line load” across the full specimen,
and one “concentrated load” about 16% of the specimen width. Seven of nine specimens were
reported to fail on the concentrated load side, suggesting a moderate decrease in shear capacity
not much greater than typical laboratory scatter. Regan [1982] and Rezai-Jorabi [1986] tested
thin wide specimens (100 mm high and from 400 to 1000 mm in width) under 4 point bending,
where the loaded-width to the member ratio (cy/bw) and supported width to member width ratio
(bs/bw) were primary test parameters. Moderate decreases in shear capacity were noted as the
cy/bw and bs/bw ratios decreased. Regan [1982] proposed a capacity interaction model between
one-way shear and two-way shear modes based on British codes of practice, which use different
critical shear section locations than ACI 318. Tests were reported by Diaz de Cossio [1962] on a
series of slab strips subject to 3 point bending with full width supports, but where the cy/bw ratio
varied from 0.25 to 1.0. Diaz de Cossio suggested that the cross-sectional area for shear stress

calculations could be approximated as one-half of the standard punching shear perimeter around
the load, but not greater than the slab width. Serna-Ros et al. [2002] examined the one-way
shear capacity of wide beams with and without shear reinforcement, where the bs/bw ratio was
reduced to 0.4 for some tests, compared to typical bs/bw =1.0 conditions. From regression
analysis of test results for members 250 mm high x 750 mm wide, Serna-Ros proposed that the
Vs component of the ACI 318 one-way shear model should be adjusted by a coefficient of
(bs/bw)0.41. Thus, the model from Serna-Ros cannot account for the reduction in shear capacity
resulting from narrow support widths in members without shear reinforcement.
This previous research suggests that a reduction in nominal one-way shear capacity is
observed when the support or load width is narrower than the width of a beam or slab. However,
ACI 318-05 does not provide design provisions or guidance in this regard. This paper
establishes a simple reduction factor to account for this influence based on eight new large-scale
tests and previously published results for moderate-scale specimens from Serna-Ros et al.
[2002], Regan [1992] and Rezai-Jorabi [1986].
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
As part of a large study on the shear capacity of wide beams and slabs, a series of tests were
developed to investigate variations in one-way shear capacity attributable to the supported- or
loaded-width of wide reinforced concrete beams. Some specimens in the test program used
narrow load and/or support bearing plates, while companion specimen configurations were
nominally identical but were loaded and supported over the full specimen width. Other major
test parameters included the inclusion or omission of web reinforcement, the longitudinal
reinforcement ratio, and the member effective depth. Large-scale tests were utilized, with
variations in the bearing plate width to member width ratio consistent with geometries
encountered for wide beam construction within building-type structures. This paper reports the
test results where bearing plate width was a major parameter. Complete details of all specimens
in the overall test program were provided by Lubell [2006].
Specimen Design and Construction
Specimens with variation in bearing plate width to member width were developed within 2 test
series of the overall program: the AW, and AX test series. Each series was classified by nominal
dimensions of the specimens. Some specimens within each series included or omitted a
moderate quantity of web reinforcement. In this paper, analysis and discussion of results
considers members with and without web reinforcement independently.
Specimens from the AW series of tests had nominal dimensions of 1170 mm wide x 590
mm high x 4880 mm total length, with a shear span of 1850 mm. AX series specimens had
nominal dimensions of 700 mm wide x 335 mm high x 2800 mm total length, with a shear span
of 1040 mm. Thus, AX specimens were approximately 60% geometric scale of the AW tests, but
are considered representative of full-scale members from industrial practice. All companion
specimens within the AW series and within the AX series had identical reinforcement bar
layouts. Specimen geometry is provided in Figure 2 and Table 1.
Reinforcement consisted of hot-rolled deformed bars. Mechanical properties, presented
in Figure 2, were determined from tension coupon tests of 3 randomly selected samples from
each heat. Well defined yield points were evident for the 25M and 15M reinforcement. The
yield point of the J10 deformed bars was determined by the 0.2% offset method.

Av f y Vtest Vtest Vtest

Specimen bw d a d f c′ ρ κ Vtest
bw s bw d f c′ Vn Vn′
(mm) (mm) (MPa) (%) (MPa) (kN)
AW4 1168 506 3.66 39.9 1.69 - 0.26 725 0.194 1.17 1.50
AW8 1169 507 3.65 39.4 1.69 - 1.00 800 0.215 1.29 1.29
AX8 705 289 3.60 41.0 1.72 - 0.22 274 0.210 1.26 1.64
AX6 703 288 3.61 41.0 1.73 - 1.00 283 0.218 1.31 1.31
AW5 1170 511 3.62 34.8 1.67 0.355 0.26 963 0.273 1.20 1.54
AW7 1170 512 3.61 35.8 1.67 0.355 1.00 1074 0.300 1.33 1.33
AW2 1172 507 3.65 39.3 1.68 0.514 0.26 818 0.220 0.88 1.13
AW6 1169 509 3.63 43.7 1.68 0.516 1.00 841 0.213 0.87 0.87
TABLE 1 – SPECIMEN PROPERTIES AND TEST RESULTS

sL= 300 Typ. Web Reinf., Uniaxial Pin (AW6 to AW8)
Config. Varies P
Plate with spreader beam
(AW2 to AW5) 75 Typ.
d h = 590
1080 365
1105
AW8 (Section) AW6 (Section)
LVDT 20-25M Bot. 20-25M Bot. + 2-15M Top AW7 (Section)
+15M @ 450 Temp. +15MStir. 20-25M Bot. + 4-15M Top
+J10 Stir.
L=3700 37 CL. Spacing
Lo=4880 Between Layers, Typ.
Load and Support
TYPICAL ELEVATION (AW Series) Sizes Vary.
PL25x152x1170 Typ. Web Reinf. Leg, Typ. PL50x305x305 Typ. 112 Typ.
1080
AW4 (Section) AW2 (Section) 1115
bw = 1170
20-25M Bot. 20-25M Bot. + 2-15M Top AW5 (Section)
+15M @ 450 Temp. +15M Stir. 20-25M Bot. + 4-15M Top
+J10 Stir.
Web Reinf Layout and Web Reinf Layout and

Supports for AW6 Shown Supports for AW5 Shown
TYPICAL PLAN (AW Series)
P
Reinforcement Properties:
d h = 335 93 Typ.
Bar Abar fy
LVDT Size (mm2) (MPa)
AX6 (Section)
L=2080 7-25M Bot. 25M 500 467
+15M @ 600 Temp.
Lo=2800 15M 200 452
TYPICAL ELEVATION (AX Series) J10 68 458
PL25x152x710 Typ. PL50x152x152 Typ.
bw = 700 AX8 (Section)

7-25M Bot.
+15M @ 600 Temp.
BEARING PLATES FOR AX6 BEARING PLATES FOR AX8
TYPICAL PLAN (AX Series)
FIGURE 2 – SPECIMEN CONFIGURATIONS
Note that in specimens AW2 and AW6 the spacing of web reinforcement legs across the width
was large, corresponding to 2.12d. Such a large spacing has previously been shown to provide
poor effectiveness of the stirrup area within the modified truss-model for shear incorporated in
ACI 318 [e.g., Serna-Ros et al., 2002; Lubell et al., 2008]. The inclusion of these specimens in

the current study allowed for evaluation of the additional detrimental influence of small κ values
on members with poor distribution of web reinforcement legs across the width.
Specimens were constructed in plywood formwork in the Huggins Structural Engineering
Laboratory at the University of Toronto. Concrete was obtained from a local ready-mix supplier,
and contained 10 mm crushed limestone aggregate or 10 mm river gravel for the AW and AX
specimens, respectively. The nominal specified strength of the concrete was 25 MPa. All
specimens were cured under moist burlap and plastic for 7 days, and removed from the
formwork after about 14 days. Specimen age at testing was between 51 and 340 days. Standard
6” diameter x 12” long (152 x 305 mm) concrete test cylinders were cast with the specimens.
The values for f c′ reported in Table 1 represent the average strength of cylinders tested on the
same day as the specimen, after having been cured under similar laboratory conditions.
Test Set-Up and Procedures
Each simply supported specimen was tested under a concentrated load at mid-span, with rollers
at each end. For some specimens, the support and loading contact areas were narrower than the
specimen width, to simulate typical wide beam to column connections. For some AW series
specimens (AW2, AW4, and AW5), 305 x 305 mm steel contact plates were used, providing a
support-to-specimen ratio of 0.26. For Specimen AX8, 152 x 152 mm steel contact plates were
used, providing a support-to-specimen ratio of about 0.22. All other AW and AX specimens
reported in this paper had load and support plates of length 152 mm (in the longitudinal direction
of the specimen) and extended across the full width of the specimen. These would represent the
configuration of beam connections in a prototype structure to either full width columns or to
walls. Note that stiff spreader beams were used with all load and support plates, and a thin layer
of bedding plaster was used between bearing plates and the concrete specimen.
For convenience in this paper, a new parameter κ is proposed to represent the smaller of
the loaded-width to member width or supported-width to member width ratio. Based on the
results of previous researchers described above, it is assumed that either ratio will have a similar
influence on one-way shear capacity for the specimens in this test program, since the applied
shear near the load or near the support is similar, being dominated by the machine force and not
the member self weight. Thus, with reference to Figure 1b, κ is defined as:
κ = MIN {(bs bw ) or (c y bw )} (1)
All tests were conducted using a force-controlled universal testing machine. Each
specimen was loaded in about 6 to 10 load increments to failure. At each load stage, the load
was reduced approximately 10% while the cracks were marked, measured with crack comparator
gauges, and photographed. Continuous recording of displacements and reinforcement strains
were provided throughout the loading histroy. Additional recording of surface strains were
made, but are beyond the scope of the current discussion and are not presented in this paper.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Members Without Shear Reinforcement
All members failed in shear, with little warning prior to peak load. Figure 3 illustrates the
influence of the load and support conditions on the load-deflection characteristics of the

specimens in Table 1 without shear reinforcement. Mid-span deflection was corrected for
measured support settlement. The figure illustrates no significant differences in the force
required to cause flexural cracking due to the decrease in κ. Post-cracking response was similar
for companion specimens, with the specimen having full width bearing plates showing slightly
higher stiffness. For the AW series specimens (AW4 and AW8), the shear stress at failure
normalized by f c′ decreased by 9.8% as κ decreased from 1.0 to 0.26. For the AX series (AX6
and AX8), the normalized shear stress at failure decreased by 3.7% for a decrease in κ from 1.0
to 0.22.
600 1750
AX6 1500
κ = 1.00 AW8
κ = 1.00 AW4
400 κ = 0.26
AX8
κ = 0.22 1000
P P
200
500
Δ Δ
L=2080 L=3700
AX Series AW Series
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10
Mid-Span Displacement, Δ (mm) Mid-Span Displacement, Δ (mm)
FIGURE 3 – LOAD-DEFLECTION RESPONSE: MEMBERS WITHOUT SHEAR REINF.
A significant difference in performance was related to the crack development on the side
faces of the members. For specimens where the loading plate extended to the specimen edge, the
flexure-shear cracks terminated at the edge of the loading plate. However, when a narrow
loading plate was used, the top of the flexure-shear crack extended past the centerline of the
specimen (see Figure 4). In some cases, this extended crack joined to the flexure-shear crack
propagating from the adjacent shear span. The difference in crack extent is explained by the lack
of confining pressure in the latter case, which allows tensile splitting cracks to form. At failure,
the concrete block bounded by the flexure-shear crack and the edge of the loading plate was
typically pushed upwards in the specimens with narrow load plates, thereby causing additional
cracking in this top block.
AX8: Narrow Loads and Supports Crack extends past beam centreline
Crack stops at edge of full-width bearing plate

AX6: Full Width Loads and Supports
FIGURE 4 – CRACKING EXTENT AFTER FAILURE FROM BEARING PLATE WIDTH

Members With Shear Reinforcement
All members failed in shear. Like members without shear reinforcement, the test results in this
project identified influences in member performance related to the load and support widths,
relative to the member width, for members with shear reinforcement.
Figure 5 illustrates the influence of the load and support conditions on the load-deflection
characteristics of members with well distributed and poorly distributed web reinforcement legs.
There were no significant differences in flexure-shear cracking due to the decreased κ. A
slightly higher post-cracking stiffness was observed for specimens with full width load and
support conditions.
AW5 and AW7 achieved large increases in maximum shear capacity compared to the
flexure shear cracking load (22% and 28% respectively), which is attributable to engagement of
the shear reinforcement after significant diagonal cracking. The similar load-deflection response
to the peak for both specimens suggests that there was minimal influence on this action as κ was
decreased. For the case of AW2 and AW6, with large transverse spacing of the web
reinforcement, the peak capacity was only about 2% higher than the corresponding load to
cause significant diagonal cracking. This is consistent with other results reported by Lubell et al.
[2008], where it was identified that the effective contribution of the truss-model component Vs in
the ACI 318 shear model would reduce as the transverse spacing of web reinforcement legs
increased. The post-peak response for AW2 and AW6 were similar, where both specimens
exhibited some post-peak displacement with a gradually decreasing force capacity, rather than a
very brittle failure. Differences in the maximum deflection for AW2 and AW6 resulted from the
need to terminate testing of AW6 sooner due to set-up constraints.
AW7
2000 κ = 1.00
2000
AW5 AW6
1500 κ = 0.26 1500 κ = 1.00
AW2
AW2 κ = 0.26
1000 1000 κ = 0.26
AW6
P P κ = 1.00
500 Δ
500 Δ
L=3700 L=3700
Well Distributed Web Reinf. Legs Concentrated Web Reinf. Legs

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
Mid-Span Displacement, Δ (mm) Mid-Span Displacement, Δ (mm)
FIGURE 5 – LOAD-DEFLECTION RESPONSE: MEMBERS WITH SHEAR REINF.
Differences in the crack development between narrow load and full-width load conditions
were similar to those discussed for members without shear reinforcement. The tops of the
flexure-shear cracks tended to pass through the beam mid-span when the load plate was partial
width, and stopped at the face of the loading plate at failure when the load was full width.
ANALYTICAL MODEL
The ACI 318-05 one-way shear model determines the nominal shear capacity Vn according to:

V n = Vc + V s (2)
Vc = 0.167 f c′bw d (3)
Vs = (Av f y d ) (s ) (4)
For design, the factored shear demand Vu should be less than φ ⋅ Vn , where φ = 0.75 .
Table 1 shows the quality of predictions as Vtest/Vn ratios for the specimens in the test
program. Vtest and Vn are evaluated, including self weight, at the ACI 318 critical section d from
the face of the support bearing plate (see Figure 1b). For each set of companion specimens
having the same reinforcement configuration and the same geometry, except for the bearing plate
sizes, the Vtest/Vn ratio consistently decreases as the parameter κ decreases. An average Vtest/Vn
ratio greater than 1.0 reflects the in-built error of the ACI 318 shear model, independent of κ.
To establish a relationship between κ and the decrease in one-way shear capacity, the
test-to-predicted capacity ratio, Vtest Vn , was normalized for each specimen by the ratio for the
member having κ=1 within the companion set (i.e. same reinforcement configuration and same
specimen geometry). Through this process, any variability in the one-way shear strength of a
member from the full-width condition companion specimen is assumed to result fully from the
variation in the κ factor. Normalization was completed for the eight specimens described in this
paper, and for test results presented by Regan [1982], Rezai-Jorabi [1986] and Serna-Ros et al.
[2002]. Complete details on this process were provided by Lubell [2006].
Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between the normalized shear capacity and parameter
κ for members with and without shear reinforcement. Notation of lines is as follows: “Lubell”
relate to the eight specimens described in this paper; “Regan #” are specimens from Regan
[1982] or Rezai-Jorabi [1986], where # represents the specimen width; “Serna #” are specimens
from Serna-Ros et al. [2002], where # is the ratio of shear leg spacing in the width direction to
the member effective depth (sW/d).
A lower estimate of the influence of parameter κ is from the dotted lines representing a
proposed shear capacity reduction factor β L . For simplicity in modifications to existing ACI 318
shear models, an identical expression for β L is used for members with and without shear
reinforcement. Note in Figure 6b that the lines representing Lubell AW2-AW6, Serna 1.17a,
Serna 1.17b, and Serna 3.35 are all characterized by large spacing of shear reinforcement legs
across the width. It has been demonstrated elsewhere that the capacity of members with wide
stirrup legs spacing is poorly predicted by the ACI 318 shear model, regardless of support width,
and these member configurations should not be used in practice [Lubell et al., 2008]. It is
proposed to introduce shear capacity reduction factors to decrease the capacity in accordance
with the steeper lines for Lubell AW5-AW7 and Serna 0.56, to ensure safe designs for more
appropriate shear reinforcement configurations. The proposed shear reduction factor is given by:
β L = 0.7 + 0.3κ (5)
To implement this model, the nominal shear capacity Vn from (1) is updated to Vn′ :
Vn′ = β L ⋅ (Vc + Vs ) (6)
The prediction ratios of Vtest / Vn′ are provided in Table 1. It is noted that the average Vtest / Vn′ ratio

is greater than 1.0, and somewhat higher than the average Vtest / Vn ratio for the varied specimen
configurations in Table 1. The average Vtest / Vn′ ratio will be different if all specimens plotted in
Figure 6 are included, and will vary based on specimen design parameters other than κ.
1.10 1.10
(a) (b)
Serna 0
Lubell AX6-AX8 Lubell
Lubell AW4-AW8 AW2-AW6 Serna 1.17b
Regan 600 Regan
1.00 400 1.00
Serna 1.17a & 3.35
Lubell
AW5-AW7
0.9 0.9
Serna 0.56
Regan
800
Regan
1000
0.8 0.8
Equation (5)
Equation (5) βL = 0.7 + 0.3κ
βL = 0.7 + 0.3κ
0.7 0.7
0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0
κ κ
FIGURE 6 – NORMALIZED CAPACITY RATIO WITH κ: (a) WITHOUT SHEAR

REINFORCEMENT, (b) WITH SHEAR REINFORCEMENT
DESIGN EXAMPLE
The use of the proposed shear capacity reduction model to account for loads or supports
narrower than the member width is demonstrated for a continuous beam with alternating
supporting columns or walls (see Figure 7). The member cross-section is 1000 mm wide x 500
mm high, with an effective reinforcement depth d=450 mm. A uniformly distributed factored
load of wf=75 kN/m is applied. For the geometry shown, the factor κ can be computed as 1.0
and 0.33 for the wall and column support locations, respectively. At both supports, the factored
shear at the critical section d from the face of the support is evaluated as Vu=526 kN, using
approximate analysis methods from ACI 318-05.
At the wall support (i.e. Section “A”), the value of κ=1.0 results in βL=1.0 from (5).
From (2), the concrete contribution towards the shear capacity is evaluated as Vc=375 kN. If
shear reinforcement is specified as 4-legs of 10M reinforcing bars (Av =400 mm2 total) spaced at
220 mm in the longitudinal direction, (4) indicates that Vs=327 kN. Hence, from (6),
Vn′ =1.0x(375+327)=702 kN. It is apparent that φ Vn′ =526 kN > Vu, using φ=0.75 from ACI 318-
05. See Figure 7 for the proposed shear reinforcement configuration at Section “A”.
Consider the case at the column support where the same shear reinforcement specified at
Section “A” near the wall is also considered. From (2) and (3), the magnitude of Vc and Vs
remain unchanged at Vc=375 kN and Vs=327 kN. However, since κ=0.33, a value of βL=0.80
results from (5), and hence Vn′ =0.8x(375+327)=561 kN from (6). In this case, φ Vn′ < Vu,
indicating that insufficient shear capacity is provided. An alternate design is required.
Since the magnitude Vc is constant from (3), the quantity of shear reinforcement must be
increased and/or the longitudinal spacing of stirrups reduced. For this example, the
configuration of the web reinforcement legs is maintained (Av=400 mm2), and only a longitudinal

spacing change is considered. If the longitudinal spacing of stirrup legs is reduced to 140 mm,
the magnitude of Vs=514 kN from (4). From (6), Vn′ =0.8x(375+514)=711 kN. Hence,
φ Vn′ =533>Vu, and an acceptable shear design results. The shear reinforcement configuration that
is recommended near the column support (at Section “B”) is illustrated in Figure 7.
d Section “A” for Section “B” for d

One-Way Shear One-Way Shear fc = 25 MPa
fy = 400 MPa
wf = 75 kN/m
Beam: 1000x500 Section “A” Stirrups: Section “B” Stirrups:
Wall: 300 x1000 Column: 300x300 4 leg 10M @ 220 mm 4 leg 10M @ 140 mm
L=13000
FIGURE 7 – DESIGN EXAMPLE FOR CONTINUOUS BEAM WITH VARIED SUPPORTS
SUMMARY
This paper presented new experimental results for wide reinforced concrete beams and slabs
where the width of the load and support bearing plates was a major test parameter. The results
showed that the one-way shear capacity of a member decreases when the loaded- or supported-
width is narrower than the width of the member. A capacity reduction factor was developed to
account for this influence, where the reduction is applied to the total nominal shear capacity
determined using the ACI318-05 modified truss model for shear. A similar reduction factor can
be applied for members with and without shear reinforcement. Use of the reduction factor was
demonstrated through a design example for a member with alternating full-width “wall” supports
and narrower “column” supports.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Financial support for this study from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary
(ACI 318R-05)”, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 430 pp.
[2] Diaz de Cossio, R., “Shear and Diagonal Tension: Discussion 59-9”, ACI Journal, 1962, pp. 1323-1332.
[3] Leonhardt, F. and Walther, R., “The Stuttgart Shear Tests 1961; Translation No. 111”, Cement and Concrete
Association, London, UK, 1964, 134 pp.
[4] Lorenz, E.B. and Trygestad, A.R., “Formwork Considerations for Economical Concrete Projects”, Concrete
International, Vol. 27, No. 5, 2005, pp. 33-36.
[5] Lubell, A.S., “Shear in Wide Reinforced Concrete Members”, PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, 2006, 455 pp.
[6] Lubell, A.S.; Bentz, E.C. and Collins, M.P., “Web Reinforcement Spacing in Wide Members”, ACI Structural
Journal, 2008, in press.
[7] Regan, P.E., “Tests of the Wide-Beam Shear Resistance of Concrete Slabs”, Polytechnic of Central London,
London, UK., 1982.
[8] Rezai-Jorabi, H., “Wide Beam Shear Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Slabs – An Experimental Report”,
Polytechnic of Central London, 1986, 22 pp.
[9] Serna-Ros, P; Fernandez-Prada, M.A.; Miguel-Sosa, P. and Debb, O.A.R., “Influence of Stirrup Distribution and
Support Width on the Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Wide Beams”, Magazine of Concrete Research,
vol. 54, No. 3, 2002, pp. 181-191.


Concrete Beam With Narrow Supports

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Concrete Beam With Narrow Supports

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures 2008: Crossing Borders © 2008 ASCE

One-Way Shear in Wide Concrete Beams with Narrow Supports

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

dimensional flow of forces necessary to achieve this distribution. Thus, it is important to

FIGURE 1 – (a) WIDE BEAM TO NARROW COLUMN CONNECTION IN PARKADE;

STATE OF THE ART

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

Specimen Design and Construction

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

Av f y Vtest Vtest Vtest

TABLE 1 – SPECIMEN PROPERTIES AND TEST RESULTS

Web Reinf Layout and Web Reinf Layout and

bw = 700 AX8 (Section)

BEARING PLATES FOR AX6 BEARING PLATES FOR AX8

TYPICAL PLAN (AX Series)

FIGURE 2 – SPECIMEN CONFIGURATIONS

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

Test Set-Up and Procedures

κ = MIN {(bs bw ) or (c y bw )} (1)

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

FIGURE 3 – LOAD-DEFLECTION RESPONSE: MEMBERS WITHOUT SHEAR REINF.

Crack stops at edge of full-width bearing plate

FIGURE 4 – CRACKING EXTENT AFTER FAILURE FROM BEARING PLATE WIDTH

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

Members With Shear Reinforcement

Well Distributed Web Reinf. Legs Concentrated Web Reinf. Legs

FIGURE 5 – LOAD-DEFLECTION RESPONSE: MEMBERS WITH SHEAR REINF.

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

β L = 0.7 + 0.3κ (5)

Vn′ = β L ⋅ (Vc + Vs ) (6)

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

FIGURE 6 – NORMALIZED CAPACITY RATIO WITH κ: (a) WITHOUT SHEAR

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

d Section “A” for Section “B” for d

FIGURE 7 – DESIGN EXAMPLE FOR CONTINUOUS BEAM WITH VARIED SUPPORTS

Copyright ASCE 2008 Structures Congress 2008

You might also like