Abstract
Purpose - Reinforced concrete (R.C.) beams are part of the structure so their design depends on the structural code and its requirements. In this paper, two simply supported R.C. beams were designed in terms of flexural and shear strength design requirements and investigated in terms of deflections and crack widths, when subjected to two asymmetric concentrated loadings, where one load is double the other one. Both beams had dimensions of 3,500 mm length, 200 mm width, and 300 mm height. The first beam (beam B1) was designed according to the combination of the structural requirements of American and Saudi building codes (ACI318-and-SBC304), while the second beam (beam B2) was designed according to the structural requirements of Eurocode (EC2). The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach - The design of ultimate capacity (section capacity) to design both flexure and shear capacity according to the design provisions in EC2 code deals with the Ultimate Limit State Design Approach, while it deals with the Ultimate Strength Design Approach according to the design provisions in both ACI318 and SBC304 codes. In the serviceability (mid-span deflection and flexural crack width) check, the three codes deal with the Serviceability Limit State Design Approach.
Findings - The laboratory behaviour of both test beams was as expected in flexure and failed in shear, but there was more shear cracks in the left shear span for both beams. This refers to the left applied loading and the spacing of shear links, where the failure occurred at the higher loading points. Perhaps, if the number of links was increased in the left side of the beam during the manufacture and reinforcing of the beam, the failure loading will be delayed and the diagonal cracks will be decreased.
Originality/value - From this study, it was concluded that: the ACI318 and SBC304 design approaches are safer than the EC2 design approach. The EC2 design approach is more economic than the ACI318 and SBC304 design approaches. The structural behaviour of both test beams was as expected in flexure but both beams failed in shear. The shear failure was in the left side of both test beams which was referred to a high loading point. Diagonal cracks followed the applied loading until both beams reached to the failure.