CE 341- Beam Analysis

By
Tyler Bringe

CE 341
Section 001
Dr. Lopez
Table of contents

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..3

Results…………………………………………………………………………………………..4-8

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………...9-10

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….10

Calculations………………………………………………………………………………Attached

2
Introduction

The purpose of this experiment was to test to failure and then analyze two large

reinforced concrete beams. Each beam was specifically designed to fail in a certain manner in

order to show students two different forms of failure. Beam 1 was designed to fail in flexure,

and beam two was designed to fail in shear. Following the testing of the beams, the goal was to

analyze the behavior which was recorded. This was done by calculating the theoretical values

for such occurrences as the cracking load, yield load, ultimate load, etc. Using the experimental

data, graphs were then made which were used to compare the theoretical results with the results

which were actually obtained through testing. The purpose of comparing the two data sets was

to determine the accuracy of the ACI code as well as to determine the amount of error which can

be found due to problems with the construction of the beam.

3
Results

Plot 1 illustrates the load vs. deflection curve of beam 1 based off of measurements that

were calculated during the testing of the beam. The experimental values for the cracking,

yielding, and ultimate loads can be seen on the plot.

Beam 1 (Pult, exp, Δult, exp)

(Pyield, exp, Δyield, exp)
45000
40000
35000
30000
Load (lbs)

25000
20000
15000
(Pcr, exp, Δcr, exp)
10000
5000
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Deflection (in)

Plot 1 Load vs. Deflection - Beam 1

Table 1 shows both the experimental and theoretical loads for beam 1. The calculations

for the theoretical loads can be found in the back of this report.

Table 1 Beam 1 Loads

Pcr Pyield Pult

Theoretical 3.62 33.05 34.2
Experimental 7.7 38.07 41.74
Units = kips

4
 The associated deflections seen during the experiment can also be seen on plot 1. They

were found to be as follows:

Δcr, exp = 0.068 in Δyield, exp = 1.189 in Δult, exp = 4.961 in

Plot 2 illustrates the load vs. deflection curve of beam 2 based off of measurements that

were calculated during the testing of the beam. The experimental values for the cracking,

yielding, and ultimate loads can be seen on the plot.

Beam 2
45000 (Pult, exp, Δult, exp)
(Pyield, exp, Δyield, exp)
40000

35000

30000
Load (lbs)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000 (Pcr, exp, Δcr, exp)

0
0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000
Deflection (in)

Plot 2 Load vs. Deflection – Beam 2

5
 Table 2 shows both the experimental and theoretical loads for beam 2. The calculations

for the theoretical loads can be found in the back of this report.

Table 2 Beam 2 Loads

Pcr Pyield Pult

Theoretical 3.55 33.7 34.75
Experimental 7.0 36.5 39.1
Units = kips

The associated deflections seen during the experiment can also be seen on plot 1. They

were found to be as follows:

Δcr, exp = 0.093 in Δyield, exp = 1.221 in Δult, exp = 2.227 in

6
Failure Modes

Beam 1 and beam 2 were specifically designed to fail differently from each other. Beam

1 was designed to fail in flexure, and beam 2 was designed to fail in shear.

Figure 1 illustrates failure seen in beam 1. The cracks can be seen on the beam and the

numbers correspond to the length of the crack at a given load. In this case the beam failed in

compression. This can be seen by the crushing of the concrete on the top of the beam.

Figure 1 Beam 1 failure

As mentioned earlier, beam 2 was designed to fail in shear. This was done primarily by

placing the stirrups too far apart thus not providing enough stirrups. Figure 2 shows what a beam

that fails in flexure should look like. A beam which has failed in shear typically has an angled

crack that extends from one of the supports to the point where the load was acting and cuts

through the entirety of the beam’s cross-section.

7
 Figure 2 Typical Shear Failure of a Beam

Figure 3 shows the way beam 2 actually looked like at failure. There is more of an

angled crack visible in this beam than what was seen in beam 1; however, due to the large

amount of crushing at the top of the beam, it failed in compression.

Figure 3 Beam 2 Failure

8
Discussion

Overall, the theoretical predictions for the loads do not correspond very well with the

experimental results. The experimental values were always a large amount lower than the

experimental values. For beam 1, for example, the predicted value for the cracking load was

found to be 3.62 kips; however, the results of testing showed that the first crack appeared at a

load of 7.7 kips. This turns out to be over a 100 % discrepancy. The discrepancy for the

yielding load and ultimate load was also found to be 15.2% and 22.0%, respectively. A cause for

these large differences could be in the equations that are used to calculate the theoretical results.

Many of the equations which ACI uses do not yield the exact correct answer. For safety reasons,

this would cause the loads to decrease because it is safer to estimate the strength of a beam to be

less than the true strength. Due to the fact that the beam performed better than predicted, it is not

plausible to blame the large difference on poor construction of the beams. This would yield

results smaller than the theoretical results.

The theoretical results for beam 2 were slightly closer to the experimental values than

beam 1; however, overall the results do not match up very well. The percent differences for the

cracking load, yielding load, and ultimate load were 97.2%, 8.3%, and 12.5%, respectively.

Another possible source for the discrepancy could come from the loading method of the beams.

When the beams were loaded they were done so at a rather rapid pace. Concrete tends to fail at

lower loads when the loads are applied at a slow rate. The loads which were found during the

testing may be larger than what they would have been if they were loaded in a slower manner.

9
 At the ultimate load, the length from the top of the beam at mid-span to the crack was

measured to be 3.125 inches. The theoretical value for “c” was calculated to be 3.6 inches. This

measurement came out to be fairly close. The percent difference was found to be 15.2%.

Conclusion

The purpose of this experiment was to analyze the behavior of two reinforced concrete

beams. The beams were tested and then theoretical values were determined based on the ACI

Code to compare the experimental results with. Overall, the theoretical values did not match

well with the experimental values. For each load, the percent difference was found to be greater

than 5%. The difference in the two did work in favor of safety though, which although is

necessarily good from an economic standpoint, it at least was found to be safer than what was

intended.

10