DISCUSSION

Disc. 110-S24/From the March-April 2013 ACI Structural Journal, p. 275

Shear in One-Way Slabs under Concentrated Load Close to Support. Paper by Eva O. L. Lantsoght, Cor
vander Veen, and Joost C. Walraven
Discussion by Angus Low
Consultant, Arup, London, UK

As a Bridge Designer, I welcome this paper because I have

been trying to get researchers interested in it for 40 years. It
is a start. I believe that it is reinforced concrete (RC) fatigue
that governs design. Will the authors extend their studies to
the fatigue problem? RC fatigue is different from fatigue of
the component materials, steel, or concrete. It refers to degradation of the interlock at the shear cracks. I have published
my estimates of the fatigue strength based on observations of
the behavior of a bridge with a thin deck.
REFERENCES

Low, A., 2011, A Hole in Current Design Standards for Concrete

Structures, IABSE Symposium, London, UK.

AUTHORS CLOSURE
The authors thank the discusser for his interest in the
paper, and for sharing his experience and insights on the
topic. As the topic of shear assessment of existing bridges is
becoming increasingly important, more research is devoted
to the shear problem in one-way slabs (Reien and Hegger
2013; Rombach et al. 2009). Similarly, the fib Model Code
(fib 2012) is the first code that gives a recommendation
for the effective width in shear for concentrated loads on
one-way slabs.
The study of shear in RC one-way slabs, representing slab
bridges, was limited to static load testing and was finished

in 2013 (Lantsoght 2013). The series of experiments did not

include fatigue testing.
However, the authors agree that RC fatigue is an important topic to be studied. Experiments are under preparation
at Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands,
to investigate fatigue in transversely prestressed thin bridge
decks that are cast in between precast prestressed girders. A
1:2 scale model of a bridge (four girders, three deck slabs)
has been constructed. It should be noted that this bridge type
is different from the slab bridges that were studied in the
shear experiments. The slab shear experiments were carried
out on specimens with a deeper cross section than the slaband-girder experiments. The results of the fatigue tests are
expected by the end of 2014.
REFERENCES

fib, 2012, Model Code 2010: Final Draft, International Federation for
Structural Concrete, Lausanne, Switzerland, 676 pp.
Lantsoght, E. O. L., 2013, Shear in Reinforced Concrete Slabs under
Concentrated Loads Close to Supports, PhD thesis, Delft University of
Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, 340 pp.
Reien, K., and Hegger, J., 2013, Experimentelle Untersuchingen zur
mitwirkenden Breite fur Querkraft von einfeldrigen Fahrbahnplatten,
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, V. 108, No. 2, pp. 96-103.
Rombach, G.; Latte, S.; and Steffens, R., 2009, Querkrafttragfahigkeit
von Fahrbahnplatten ohne Querkraftbewehrung, Forschung StraBenbau
under StraBenverkehrstechnik, 94 pp.

Disc. 110-S26/From the March-April 2013 ACI Structural Journal, p. 297

Minimum Web Reinforcement in Deep Beams. Paper by David B. Birrcher, Robin G. Tuchscherer, Matt Huizinga,
and Oguzhan Bayrak
Discussion by Emil de Souza Snchez Filho, Marta de Souza Lima Velasco, Jlio. J. Holtz Silva Filho, and
Iporan de Figueiredo Guerrante
ACI member, D.Sc., Professor of the Fluminense Federal University, RJ, Brazil; D.Sc., Professor of PUC-Rio, RJ, Brazil; D.Sc., Professor of PUC-Rio, RJ, Brazil; M.Sc., Doctoral
Student and Professional Engineer of the Fluminense Federal University, RJ, Brazil

The authors should be congratulated on their experimental

study in determining the appropriate amount of minimum
web reinforcement in deep beams. The discussers, however,
would like to offer the following comments to enhance the
results obtained:
1. The discussers would like to point out that the FIP
Recommendations,15 Item 6.5.3, Deep Beams, provides this
as a requirement: (1) Deep beams may be designed with
strut-and-tie models. Special attention shall be paid to the
anchorage in the nodes at the support. Minimum reinforcement of 0.1% of the concrete section in each direction
should be placed on each face. First of all, this code was
published in September 1999 and not in December 1999,
as referenced by the authors. In fib7 Structural Concrete,
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Volume 3, Professor Kurt Schaefer proposes in Deep

Beams and Discontinuity Regions, that For proportioning the reinforcement, it is recommended to begin with
additional reinforcement according to clause 9.5.1.1.2 of
MC90, which is 0.2% of the concrete cross-section in both
orthogonal directions. These reinforcements, consisting of
relatively thin bars, are arranged on both faces (0.1% for
each face), the horizontal reinforcement normally inside the
vertical bars. In the same text, we have the reinforcement should be designed for crack distribution according to
MC90 Clause 7.4 That is how the serviceability requirement is established. The authors, therefore, should review
the statement ...and fib7 (0.2% in each direction) and the
fib curves plotted on Fig. 2 and 3.
223

2. Strain gauges to reinforcement and to beam concrete

faces (rosettes) were not provided. For this reason, the
discussers consider that instrumentation was for the purpose
of experimental research. The strut strains (compression
and tension) and reinforcements strains are essential to the
analysis because the crack width is directly related to these
strains. The tests were controlled by load increment but
only the diagonal crack width was measured for each stage
of loading. Thus, it is impossible to study the concrete strut
shown in Fig. 1.
3. The test results or database of 179 deep beams were
taken from literature and used to determine the nominal
capacity of these structural elements. The authors did not
explain the methodology used. The discussers believe that it
is not possible to check the data of Fig. 14 without additional
information about the use of the factor 2/3, which provides
an important result of the research. The initial cracking
stage would have been better observed if strains of steel
and concrete had been measured. That would have made it
possible to verify this particular assumption.
4. The discussers agree with the authors conclusion that
the amount of reinforcement should be calculated based on
effective strut area but they failed to show how to calculateit.
5. The codes require that reinforcement be positioned on
the faces of deep beams. The authors proposed an atypical
disposition of the web reinforcement for cracking control of
thick members, shown in Fig. 18. However, neither specimen tested had this reinforcement configuration.
The discussers encourage the authors to continue their
interesting experimental research but would greatly appreciate if they could provide some complementary information
about the investigation.
REFERENCES

15. FIP Recommendations, Practical Design of Structural Concrete,

London, UK, Sept. 1999.

AUTHORS CLOSURE
1. The authors greatly appreciate the supplemental information related to the fib provisions. Because the web

reinforcement attributed to the fib provisions in the paper

is for both faces (0.2% in each orthogonal direction), the
authors confirm that the discussers findings are consistent
with thepaper.
2. Strain gauges were installed on the reinforcement and
on the faces of the concrete for several tests in this test series.
Data from them were not reported because they did not add
enough to the primary goals of the paper for the allotment of
space it would require. One exception is the statement The
cracking load was determined with visual observation and
strain readings on web reinforcement near the location of the
first diagonal crack. While there are some instances where
this strain data can be helpful, it is the authors contention
that crack width data provides more useful and practical
information. The authors agree with the discussers that crack
width data is directly related to these strains, but do not agree
that both are needed to study the behavior of deep beams.
3. The authors agree that more information is needed to
check the use of the 2/3 factor given in the paper. Unfortunately, there was not enough space in the current paper to
provide this information. Please refer to Reference 1 in the
original paper or that found in Reference 16 herein.
4. Calculation of the effective strut area, for the purposes
of obtaining the proper amount of web reinforcement, is
discussed in the Design Recommendations section and is
provided graphically with example calculations in Fig. 17.
5. There is a lack of consensus and, in some cases,
contradictory requirements across various code provisions
regarding the transverse distribution of web reinforcement
across the webs of beams. In Reference 3 of the paper, this
issue is addressed explicitly. The conclusions of this study
found that the strength and serviceability performance of
deep beams were not appreciably affected by the distribution
of reinforcement transversely. Several tests were conducted
with a similar reinforcement configuration as shown in
Fig. 18.
REFERENCES

16. Tuchscherer, R. G.; Birrcher, D. B.; and Bayrak, O., Strut-and-Tie

Model Design Provisions, PCI Journal, V. 56, No. 1, 2011, pp. 155-170.

Disc. 110-S26/From the March-April 2013 ACI Structural Journal, p. 297

Minimum Web Reinforcement in Deep Beams. Paper by David B. Birrcher, Robin G. Tuchscherer, Matt Huizinga,
and Oguzhan Bayrak
Discussion by Andor Windisch
PhD, ACI member, Karlsfeld, Germany

The authors report on a test series with 12 full-scale deep

beams where the web reinforcement was varied.
In their former paper,3 the authors found the direct strut
as the primary load-transfer mechanism, which corresponds
to the one-panel model. In the present test series with
a/d values between 1.2 and 2.5, the dimensions of both the
support and the loading plate were held constant; this means
that the most important influencing factor of the direct
strutthe horizontal node lengthwas not adapted to the
expectable and highly variable load-bearing capacities. The
relative support compressions varied from 0.080 (III-2.5-00)
to 0.645 ((III-1.2-02). Please clarify how a designer should
dimension the direct strut of a deep beam. Does Conclusion
224

No. 2 apply to deep beams with different support dimensions, too?

In discussing the failure characteristics, the authors classify the failures of the direct strut as splitting or diagonal
tension at relative support compressions from 0.061 to
0.338, whereas the crushing values ranged from 0.130 to
0.491. Nevertheless, at each picture, the failure areas highlighted by the authors show quite identical characteristics,
which are more reminiscent of concrete cover failures due to
the dowel action of the web reinforcement than of crushing.
Pleaseclarify.
Moreover, the tensile reinforcement was kept constant,
too. Control calculations reveal that at failure, the tensile
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2014

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.