See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284936324

Seismic effects on deep beams in a reinforced concrete building

Conference Paper · June 2012

CITATIONS READS
3 189

3 authors, including:

Md Shahnewaz M. Shahria Alam

Dynamic Structures & UNBC, Canada University of British Columbia - Okanagan
28 PUBLICATIONS   89 CITATIONS    222 PUBLICATIONS   1,888 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Piston Based Self-Centering Bracing System View project

Structural health monitoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md Shahnewaz on 15 October 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 rd
3 International Structural Specialty Conference
ième
3 conférence internationale spécialisée sur le génie des structures

Edmonton, Alberta
June 6-9, 2012 / 6 au 9 juin 2012

Seismic Effects on Deep Beams in a Reinforced Concrete

Building

Md Shahnewaz, Ahmad Rteil, M. Shahria Alam

School of Engineering, University of British Columbia, Kelowna, BC.

Abstract: A predominant failure mode in deep beams is shear failure which is a brittle and
sudden and can lead to catastrophic consequences. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the
shear deficiency of deep beams under seismic loads. This paper aims to investigate the seismic
performance of reinforced concrete deep beams structure. A reinforced concrete structure with a
deep beam in the first storey was selected from the literature and was analyzed. The capacity of
the structure was calculated using non-linear displacement based Pushover Analysis (POA) and
the seismic demand was calculated for ten different earthquake records using non-linear Time
History Analysis. The study showed a significant strength deficit in the deep beam at the first
storey level under different earthquake records. While the drift of the structure and the inter-storey
drift ratio were found in the tolerable limits the base shear capacity of the structure was found
insufficient.

1. Introduction

A beam is generally regarded as a deep beam when its shear span to depth ratio is less than 2.5
(a/d<2.5). In such a case, Bernoulli theory does not accurately predict the behavior of the beam
since the assumption of ‘plane sections remain plane’ does not apply. The shear strength of deep
beam is completely depending on its size (span/depth ratio). This has been established after
Kani’s investigations in the 1960s. Later other researchers (Rogowsky 1986 and Collins 1991)
also investigated the size effects on deep beams and made the same conclusion. All the studies
reported in the literature showed that the shear strength of the deep beams increases when the
shear span to depth ratio decreases (Kani 1979, Varghese 1966 and Watstein 1958).

Deep beams cannot be accurately designed using sectional methods due to the non-linearity in
the strain distribution. The current design codes, such as the ACI 318 (in USA) and the CSA 23.3
(in Canada) building codes incorporate the Strut and Tie Method (STM) to predict the capacity
and to design deep beams. The basic principal of the STM method is based on truss analogy
where the member capacity as a function of a/d (Schlaich 1987 and Marti 1985). The total
compression forces in the STM model are carried by the concrete strut and the tension forces are
carried by the tie which formed at the longitudinal flexural reinforcements. The STM method is an
approximate method which provides flexibility in the design. This flexibility in STM is one of the
drawbacks where the designers have several options to choose the dimension and shape of the
truss (STM model).

The current ACI 318 and CSA 23.3 building design codes only consider the static load cases for
designing a deep beam section in a building. The behavior of the deep beams under dynamic
earthquake loads is unknown. Therefore, it was necessary to investigate the performance of deep
beams in a reinforced concrete structure under seismic loads.

STR-1238-1
2. Objectives and Scope

This paper aims to investigate the actual dynamic behavior of the deep beams under earthquake
loads. At first, the capacity of the structure was calculated using the non-linear static pushover
analysis (POA). Then the seismic demand was determined by performing a non-linear time
history analysis for different previous earthquake records. The dynamic performance of the deep
beams was evaluated in terms of their ductility and the shear capacity to demand ratio.

3. Structural Details of Deep Beam Structures

A two-dimensional seven-storey reinforced concrete structure was modeled in SAP2000. The

reinforcement details and the dimensions were adopted from the literature (Li 2003). The location
of the building is in Taiwan and it is currently used as a school building. The building requires a
space in the ground floor for parking. Therefore, the two interior columns in the upper floor were
discontinued to provide the required space at the ground floor (Fig 1). The structure consists of a
low-rise frame of 28.9 m high and 23.7 m wide with a deep beam at the first floor. Base columns
were assumed to be fully fixed at the ground level, with vertical span of 8.05m.

The building has three types of columns, base columns, exterior columns and the interior
columns. The building also has two types of beam, the deep beam at the first floor level and
slender beams in the rest of the floors. The dimensions of the structure and deep beam cross
section are shown in Fig 1. The designed cross sections of the beams and the columns are
shown in Table 1.

4. Pushover Analysis

The static pushover analysis (POA) was used to evaluate the behaviour of the structure within the
inelastic range and also to determine the capacity of the building (Krawinkler 1998, Park 1996,
and Mwafy 2001). Lateral load was applied on the structure by considering the total mass as a
lumped mass single degree of freedom system. The load pattern for the pushover analysis was
chosen such that its shape is proportional to the deflected shape of the building throughout the
elastic range of response. The pushover analysis could be either force-based or displacement-
based. The displacement based analysis was used in the present study. Therefore, a constant
incremental acceleration was applied at the base until the structure collapse completely. The P-
delta effects were also included in the pushover analysis.

Table1. Detailing of the columns and beams

Dimension Flexural Shear

(mm) Reinforcement ratio (%) Reinforcement
Base Column 675 X 1600 3.27 10M@300mm
Column Exterior Column 690 X 900 1.79 10M@300mm
Interior Column 691 X 900 1.49 10M@300mm
Deep Beam 1700 X 2100 0.46 (T) 10M@300mm
1.62 (B) 10M@300mm
Beam
Floor Beam (B1, B2) 600 X 650 0.82 (T) 10M@300mm
2.58 (B) 10M@300mm

STR-1238-2
 (a) Elevation view

(b) Section 1-1

Figure 1: Detail of the building used in the model (All dimensions are in mm)

STR-1238-3
5. Time History Analysis

The time history analysis was performed for the City of Vancouver, BC, soil conditions. Ten
different earthquake time history records (Table 2) were used for this purpose. All the earthquake
time history records were taken from the PEER ground motion database website (Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center). The time history data was scaled according to the
Vancouver response spectrum using the SeismoMatch software (Fig 2).

Table2. Earthquake records

Record Event Station Year Magnitude

1 San Fernando Borrego 1971 6.61

2 Chi Chi CHY002 1999 7.62

3 Morgan Hill Corralitos 1984 6.19

4 Loma Prieta Emeryville 1989 6.93

5 Gulf of California Imperial valley 2001 5.7

6 Kobe FUK 1995 6.9

7 Northridge Beverly Hills 1994 6.69

8 Duzce, Turkey Sakarya 1999 7.14

9 Victoria Chihuahua 1980 6.3

10 New Zealand Matahinia Dam 1987 6.6

*Source: http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_motion_database/

a) Original b) Scaled

Figure 2: Typical earthquake record before and after scaling

STR-1238-4
6. Results and Discussions

6.1 Capacity for the Structure

The structural ductility and the displacements were calculated from the POA. The lateral
displacement profiles from the POA analysis at different storey levels are shown in Fig. 3a, and
the corresponding inter-storey drift ratios are shown in Fig. 3b. The maximum roof displacement
was 167.8 mm and at the deep beam level the displacement was 51 mm. The maximum inter-
nd
storey drift was 0.89% at the 2 storey, whereas at the deep beam level it was 0.64%. The FEMA
356 guideline describes three damage levels for a building structure depending on the inter-
storey drift ratios: immediate occupancy (drift ratio < 1%), life safety (drift ratio < 2%) and collapse
prevention (drift ratio < 4%). From the analysis results, it can be concluded that the structure
considered has not reached its immediate occupancy damage level and therefore, will remain
safe (FEMA 356).

Figure 3: (a) Displacement profiles from POA. (b) Inter-storey drift ratio from POA

6.2 Comparison between Structure Seismic Demand and Capacity

The structure was analyzed for the seismic demand using the non-linear time history analysis.
The displacement demand (Fig. 4a) and the inter-storey drift demand (Fig. 4b) of the structure
were calculated for the ten different earthquake records. The maximum displacement at the top
storey was 80 mm and the maximum inter-storey drift was 0.42% at the third floor. The capacity
of the structure was 167.8 mm (from the pushover analysis) which results in a safety factor of 2.1
against the most severe earthquake record. On the other hand, among the ten earthquake
records investigated, six of them showed that the base shear capacity to demand ratio was
exceeded significantly (Fig. 5). Moreover, the POA results showed that the plastic hinges were
formed at the lower storey beam-column joints. The first hinge was formed at the deep beam
level then it extended to the upper storey levels during the next incremental load. For the column
plastic hinges, the first one was formed at the base column level and extended to the upper
storeys during the following loading steps.

STR-1238-5
 (a)

(b)

Figure 4: capacity vs demand (a) Displacement (b) Inter-storey drift ratio

STR-1238-6
 Figure 5: Base shear capacity vs displacement

6.3 Shear Demand for the Deep Beams

The total shear demand of the beam at different storey levels for the ten earthquake records are
presented in Fig. 6. While Fig. 7 shows the capacity to the demand ratio. The average ratio for
the ten earthquakes was about 1.15 which may not be a sufficient factor of safety for the
structure. Moreover, two earthquake records showed that the demand exceeds the capacity at
the deep beam. For example, the shear demand at the deep beam for the earthquake record of
Victoria (Mexico, 1980) was 2891 kN while the capacity from the POA was 2748 kN.

Figure 6: Beam shear (pushover and time history)

STR-1238-7
 Figure 7: Deep Beam shear capacity vs demand

7. Conclusions

This paper presented a non-linear seismic analysis of a deep beam designed for static loads only.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis results:

• The lateral displacement capacity of the structure is found to be in the safe range as it
does not reach the immediate occupancy damage level according to FEMA guidelines.
The overall factor of safety was calculated as 2.1 in terms of displacement capacity and
as 1.1 in terms of inter-storey drift.

• The base shear of the structure was found to be insufficient. Sixty percent of the
earthquake records showed that the capacity of the structure falls below the demand.
Therefore, a retrofit technique should be implemented at the base column to increase the
capacity.

• The shear capacity of the slender beams at the upper storey was found satisfactory.
However, there was a significant strength deficit observed for the shear capacity of the
deep beam. The shear demand for the deep beam exceeded the capacity for twenty
percent of the earthquake records. It should be noted that the failure of the deep beam
will result in total collapse of the building.

• The hinge formation in the pushover analysis showed that the first hinge formed at the
deep beam level in the beam-column joint. Therefore, a retrofitting technique should be
applied to strengthen the deep beam.

References

ACI Committee 318, 2005. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (318R-05). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI:430.
Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D., 1991. Prestressed Concrete Structures. Prentice Hall, pp. 766.

STR-1238-8
 CSA Committee A23.3, 2004. Design of Concrete Structures: Structures (Design)—A National
Standard of Canada. Canadian Standards Association.
Kani, M. W., Huggins, M. W., and Wittkopp, R. R., 1979. Kani on Shear in Reinforced Concrete.
University of Toronto Press, pp. 225.
Krawinkler, H., and Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. 1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic
performance evaluation. Engineering Structures, 20(4-6): 452-464. doi: 10.1016/S0141-
0296(97)00092-8.
Li, J.H., Su, R.K.L., and Chandler, A.M. 2003. Assessment of low-rise building with transfer beam
under seismic forces. Engineering Structures, 25(12): 1537-1549. doi: 10.1016/S0141-
0296(03)00121-4.
Marti, P. 1985. Truss Models in Detailing. Concrete International, 7(12): 66-73.
Morsch, E., 1909. Concrete steel construction. English translation E.P. Goodrich, McGraw-Hill,
rd
New York, from 3 edition.
Mwafy, A.M., and Elnashai, A.S. 2001. Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC
buildings. Engineering Structures, 23(5): 407-424. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00068-7.
Park, R. 1997. Static force-based procedure for the seismic assessment of existing reinforced
concrete moment resisting frames. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering, 30(3): 213-226.
Rogowsky, D.M., and MacGregor, J.G. 1986. Design of reinforced concrete deep beams.
Concrete International, 8(8): 49-58.
Schlaich, J., Schaefer, K., and Jennewein, M. 1987. Towards a Consistent Design of Structural
Concrete. PCI Journal, 32(3): 74-150.
Varghese, P.C., and Krishnamoorthy, C.S. 1966. Strength and behavior of deep reinforced
concrete beams. Indian Concrete Journal, 40(3): 104-108.
Watstein, D., and Mathey, R.G. 1958. Strains in beams having diagonal cracks. American
Concrete Institute Journal, 30(6): 717-728.

STR-1238-9

View publication stats