1.

Centrally Loaded Deep Beam

Step 1: Proposed STM

Figure 2: Proposed STM
Step 2: Calculation of failure load
Given:
t 200 := mm
Effective depth, d 450 := mm L
b
200 := mm f
ck
30 := MPa

cc
0.85 :=
m
1.5 := f
cd

cc
f
ck

m
:= f
cd
17 = MPa f
yd
435 := MPa
d'= 50 mm Width of tie, u= 2d'= 100mm
a
v
700 100 100 := a
v
500 = mm

Figure 3: Geometry for proposed STM

Let P be the failure load, C
s
is the compressive force in the strut, C is the mean
compressive force in the top node. From resolution of forces at top node in vertical
direction we have:
At node 2
Fy 0 :=
P
2
C
s
sin :=
P
2
1 ( )
The design strength of strut in transverse tension is
rd,s

rds
0.6 1
f
ck
250

\
|
|
.
f
cd
:=

rds
8.976 = MPa
Width of the strut,
w L
b
sin u cos + := sin
Compressive force in the strut , C
s
=
rds
x w x t
C
s
= 359040 sin + 179520 cos
2 ( )
Put (2) in equation (1) we have
P = 718080 sin
2
+ 359040 sin cos
3 ( )
Let y be the width of tie at top node, then from geometry:
y
2
d a tan :=
y
2
4 ( )
The top node is a CCC node where the permissible stress is
rdc
= 1 x v' x f
cd

rdc
1 1
f
ck
250

\
|
|
.
f
cd
:=

rdc
14.96 = MPa
Mean Compressive force at the top node , C=
rdc
y t
C = 2692800 - 3889600 tan
5 ( )
At equilibrium, M
ed
= M
rd
P
2
a C d
y
2

\
|
|
.
:=
P
2
a
Using (4)------
P
2
a C a tan :=
P
2
a
Using (5)-----
P 5385600 tan 7779200 tan
2
:= tan
6 ( )
Equate eq(3) with (6), we have
718080 sin
2
+ 359040 sin cos = 5385600 tan - 7779200 tan
2

Dividing the equation throughout by cos
2
:
718080 tan
2
+ 359040 tan = 5385600 tan sec
2
- 7779200 tan
2
sec
2

Using the trignometric identity sec
2
= 1+tan
2

718080tan
2
+359040 tan =5385600tan +5385600tan
3
-7779200tan
2
-7779200 tan
4

On simplyfying we have:
7779200 tan
4
5385600 tan
3
8497600 tan
2
+ 5026560 tan 0 := 7779200 tan
4
5385600 tan
3
8497600 tan
2
+ 5026560 tan
Solution set: tan=0 (Not possible)
tan= 0.61
tan= 0.03 +i1.02 (Imaginary root)
tan= 0.03 - i1.02 (Imaginary root)
Hence possible value of tan = 0.61 --> = 31.38 degrees
Put the value of into equation (3), we can get the failure load P.
P = 718080 sin
2
(31.38) + 359040 sin(31.38) cos(31.38)
P 354.34 := KN
Shear force, V
P
2
:= V 177.17 = KN

edstm
V 1000
200 450
:=
edstm
1.969 =
Step 3: Design for ties
T
P
2
cot := cot T 290.48 := KN
A
sreqd
T 10
3

f
yd
:= A
sreqd
667.77 = mm
2
Provide 2T25 bars in one layer (A
sprov
= 981 mm
2
, OK)
Step 4: Shear resistance as per EC2
Here a
v
/d = 500/450 = 1.11. EC2 suggests the following equation to calculate the shear
strength of slender beams without shear reinforcement. This equation accounts for size
effects, dowel action, concrete strength and reinforcement ratio.

rdc
0.18 k
100 f
ck

( )
1
3

m
:= k
where
k 1
200
d
+ := k 1.667 =
(which is less than 2)

m
1.5 =

981
200 450
:= 0.011 =

rdc
0.18 k
100 f
ck

( )
1
3

m
:=

rdc
0.64 = MPa
EC2 reduces the design shear force by the multiple a
v
/2d to account for the increase in
shear strength owing to arching action in short beams. The EC2 shear capacity,
ed
can
be obtained by multiplying 2d/a
v
by
rdc
.

ed
2
d
a
v

rdc
:=
ed
1.151 = MPa
Thus it can be seen that STM gives a higher shear capacity as compared to the EC2
equation (with no shear reinforcement).This is due to the fact that STM tends to
overpredict the mean strength of the beams without stirrups mainly due to the effective
strength of concrete in the strut (and hence the influence of node dimensions) being
overestimated. However STM approach is found to give more accurate results for beams
with stirrups and having 1< a
v
/d <2 as it overcomes the variability in accuracy with Stirrup
Index (SI) by considering a reduced contribution of the direct strut as the SI increases.
This is contrary to EC2 which is highly dependent on the stirrup index (Sagaseta and
Vollum, 2010).
In beams without stirrups, the contribution of the direct strut is the greatest which is mainly
due to the aggregate interlock. However, short span beams fail due to the formation of
diagonal shear crack which may cause the splitting or crushing of concrete near the
loading plate. This is contrary to the STM assumptions where the bottom node at the
support is assumed to be critical. Moreover, for beams without stirrup, STM tend to
overestimate the shear strength due to the variations in the orientation of diagonal shear
crack within the direct strut.
Reference: Sagaseta J and Vollum RL (2010): Shear design of short-span beams,
Magazine of Concrete Research, 62, No.4, pp:267-282.