{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/44554"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/44554","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Comparison of design methods for shear in reinforced concrete beams","abstract":"There are two basic methods used to analyze and design reinforced concrete members for shear, the American Concrete Institute Code method (used in the United States) and the truss model method (used in different European Codes and in the Canadian Codes). The ACI Code method is a semi-empirical solution since it builds on fitting actual test results to the analytical mechanism method. Although it will lead to safe results, the ACI method lacks a physical model to represent the actual forces in the beam. For this reason, attention is increasingly being given to develop a mechanical-mathematical model to show the actual behavior of the beam failing in shear. The truss model theory provides a more promising way to treat shear since it can model the structural action in the beam. It was first proposed by Ritter and Marsh at the turn of the twentieth century. The concept has been extended by recent work of Lampert and Thürlimann (1971), Collins and Mitchell (1980), MacGregor (1988), and others. The purpose of this study is to compare the ACI method and the truss model method for the design of reinforced concrete slender and deep beams. The results of this study suggest that the truss model is better suited for the design of deep reinforced concrete beams because it models the dominant mechanism that happens in the beam which is the force transfer from load to reaction by the direct compression struts. For slender reinforced concrete beams, either method is suitable for design.","abstract_html":"There are two basic methods used to analyze and design reinforced concrete members for shear, the American Concrete Institute Code method (used in the United States) and the truss model method (used in different European Codes and in the Canadian Codes). The ACI Code method is a semi-empirical solution since it builds on fitting actual test results to the analytical mechanism method. Although it will lead to safe results, the ACI method lacks a physical model to represent the actual forces in the beam. For this reason, attention is increasingly being given to develop a mechanical-mathematical model to show the actual behavior of the beam failing in shear. The truss model theory provides a more promising way to treat shear since it can model the structural action in the beam. It was first proposed by Ritter and Marsh at the turn of the twentieth century. The concept has been extended by recent work of Lampert and Thürlimann (1971), Collins and Mitchell (1980), MacGregor (1988), and others. The purpose of this study is to compare the ACI method and the truss model method for the design of reinforced concrete slender and deep beams. The results of this study suggest that the truss model is better suited for the design of deep reinforced concrete beams because it models the dominant mechanism that happens in the beam which is the force transfer from load to reaction by the direct compression struts. For slender reinforced concrete beams, either method is suitable for design.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Loulizi, Amara"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Master of Science","degree_level":"masters","degree_discipline":"Civil Engineering","degree_department":"Civil Engineering","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Barker, Richard M."],"committee_members":["Holzer, Siegfried M.","Garst, Donald A."],"year":1992,"date_issued":"1992-04-05","date_published":"1992-04-05","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:13Z","subjects":[],"languages":["en"],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-09052009-040428"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-09052009-040428","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/44554","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Barker, Richard M."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Holzer, Siegfried M.","Garst, Donald A."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Civil Engineering"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Loulizi, Amara"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T21:44:32Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T21:44:32Z","2009-09-05"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["1992-04-05"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"dc:type.dcmitype","label":"Dc Type Dcmitype","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Civil Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-09052009-040428"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/44554"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["There are two basic methods used to analyze and design reinforced concrete members for shear, the American Concrete Institute Code method (used in the United States) and the truss model method (used in different European Codes and in the Canadian Codes). The ACI Code method is a semi-empirical solution since it builds on fitting actual test results to the analytical mechanism method. Although it will lead to safe results, the ACI method lacks a physical model to represent the actual forces in the beam. For this reason, attention is increasingly being given to develop a mechanical-mathematical model to show the actual behavior of the beam failing in shear. The truss model theory provides a more promising way to treat shear since it can model the structural action in the beam. It was first proposed by Ritter and Marsh at the turn of the twentieth century. The concept has been extended by recent work of Lampert and Thürlimann (1971), Collins and Mitchell (1980), MacGregor (1988), and others. The purpose of this study is to compare the ACI method and the truss model method for the design of reinforced concrete slender and deep beams. The results of this study suggest that the truss model is better suited for the design of deep reinforced concrete beams because it models the dominant mechanism that happens in the beam which is the force transfer from load to reaction by the direct compression struts. For slender reinforced concrete beams, either method is suitable for design."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Master of Science"]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["BTD"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Comparison of design methods for shear in reinforced concrete beams"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Barker, Richard M."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Holzer, Siegfried M.","Garst, Donald A."],"dc:contributor.department":["Civil Engineering"],"dc:creator":["Loulizi, Amara"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T21:44:32Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T21:44:32Z","2009-09-05"],"dc:date.issued":["1992-04-05"],"dc:description.abstract":["There are two basic methods used to analyze and design reinforced concrete members for shear, the American Concrete Institute Code method (used in the United States) and the truss model method (used in different European Codes and in the Canadian Codes). The ACI Code method is a semi-empirical solution since it builds on fitting actual test results to the analytical mechanism method. Although it will lead to safe results, the ACI method lacks a physical model to represent the actual forces in the beam. For this reason, attention is increasingly being given to develop a mechanical-mathematical model to show the actual behavior of the beam failing in shear. The truss model theory provides a more promising way to treat shear since it can model the structural action in the beam. It was first proposed by Ritter and Marsh at the turn of the twentieth century. The concept has been extended by recent work of Lampert and Thürlimann (1971), Collins and Mitchell (1980), MacGregor (1988), and others. The purpose of this study is to compare the ACI method and the truss model method for the design of reinforced concrete slender and deep beams. The results of this study suggest that the truss model is better suited for the design of deep reinforced concrete beams because it models the dominant mechanism that happens in the beam which is the force transfer from load to reaction by the direct compression struts. For slender reinforced concrete beams, either method is suitable for design."],"dc:description.degree":["Master of Science"],"dc:format.medium":["BTD"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-09052009-040428"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/44554"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:title":["Comparison of design methods for shear in reinforced concrete beams"],"dc:type":["Thesis"],"dc:type.dcmitype":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Civil Engineering"],"thesis:degree_level":["masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science"],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:13Z"}