ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Title no. 105-S18

Shear Behavior of Large Concrete Beams Reinforced
with High-Strength Steel
by Tarek K. Hassan, Hatem M. Seliem, Hazim Dwairi, Sami H. Rizkalia, and Paul Zia
This paper presents test results of six large-size concrete beams
reinforced with either conventional- or high-strength steel and
tested up to failure. The beams were COllstructed without web
reinforcement to evaluate the nominal shear strength provided by
the concrete. The shear behavior, ultimate load-carryirlg capacity,
and mode of failure are presented. The applicability oj the current
ACI design code to large-size concrete beams constructed without
web reinforcemelll is discussed. The influence 0/ the shear span-
depth ratio, concrete compressive strength, as well as the type Gild
the amount of longitudinal s teel reinforcement is investigated.
The study shows that using high-strength steel alters the mode of
failure from diagonal tension to shear compression failure and
results in higher shear strength compared with using conventional
steel. It was also found that the current ACI shear design
provisions are ullconservative for large-size concrete beams
without web reinforcement.
Keywords: beams; high-performance steel; high-strength steel; shear.
INTRODUCTION
The demand for high-perfonnance reinforcing materials
has been increasing over the past few years to combat
unnecessary repair costs, which are estimated to exceed
billions of dollars a year in the U.S.
i
,2 Extensive research
has been conducted in the past few years to evaluate the
materials characteristics of different types of high-petfonnance
steel. Nevertheless, the resulting impact on exi sti ng building
codes is sparse in relation to the effort put into research. The
lack of infonnation regarding the behavior of concrete
members reinforced with this type of material prevents
design engineers from using the full strength of the material.
Different types of high-petfonnance reinforcing bars are
currently being examined by different research institutions
and universities worldwide for various structural engineering
applications. By metallurgically modifying the microstructure
of the steel, the bars are less susceptible to conosion
compared with conventional steel and have a yield strength
that is almost twice that of conventional steel. Several
demonstration projects including bridge decks, airport
control towers, bridge piers, and high-rise condominiums
have been constructed successfully using high-strength
steel.
2
Nevertheless, in most of these applications, the high-
strength bars have been used by direct substitution of the
amount required for conventional steel and, thus, neglecting
the benefits of the higher yield strength of the material. It has
been recently reported that the higher yield strength of the
material could strongly influence the shear behavior, ultimate
load-carrying capacity, and mode of failure of concrete beams
reinforced with this type of material. J The use of high-
performance steel reinforcement in concrete footings and
mat foundations has an emergent potential to increase
longevity and, therefore, lead to substantial savings in the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
life-cycle cost of concrete structures. The high yield strength
of the material combined with its enhanced corrosion resistance
makes it ideal for substructure applications. In most cases,
the depth of footings and mat foundations is controlled by
either one- or two-way shear. Therefore, understanding the
shear behavior of concrete members reinforced with high-
performance steel is essential for a safe and economic. design
of foundations.
Despite numerous comprehensive studies over the last 50 years,
understanding of the shear behavior of conventionally-reinforced
concrete beams remains unclear. Several international codes,4-6
including the current ACI Building Code (ACI318-05),4 are
based on semi-empirical considerations. The calculated
shear strength could vary significantly among different code
approaches. Discrepancies up to 250% in the aJlowable shear
stress according to different codes of practice have been
reported
7
There is also substantial evidence that the shear
stress at failure decreases as the depth of the member increases
and as the aggregate size decreases
8
-
iO
Such a phenomenon
raises doubt about the use of current shear design provisions
for beams without web reinforcement. It should be highlighted
that 86% of all available test data compiled by the Subcom-
mittee F of Joint ACI-ASCE Corrunittee 445 pertain to beam
depths less than 500 mm (20 in.)9
One of the main factors affecting the nominal concrete
shear strength is the ability of concrete to transfer shear
across cracks in the web of the beams. Softening of the
concrete due to the biaxial state of tension-compression in the
web of beams loaded in shear has been investigated by many
researchers, and different fonnulations have been proposed in
the past 25 years. It has been observed that these models vary
widely even for concrete beams reinforced with conventional
steel. Some theories of biaxial softening of concrete do not even
predict concrete crushing at very high defonnations.
ii
This paper presents test results of six large-size concrete
beams reinforced with either high-strength or conventional
Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel and tested up to failure. All the
beams were constructed without web reinforcement to evaluate
the concrete shear strength. The influence of the shear span-
depth ratio (a/d) as well as the type and the amount of
longitudinal steel reinforcement is investigated.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Efficient use of the high tensile strength characteristics of
the high-petfonnance steel is expected to provide durable
ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No.2, March-April 2008.
MS No. S-2oo6-398.RI received October 11 ,2006, and rcvie..-.ed under Institllte
publication policies. Copyright 2008, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless pennission is obtained from the proprietors.
Pertinent di scussion including authors closure, if any, will be pubhshed to the January-
February 2009 ACI Slrncnfra/ JOImus/ if the discussion is received by September 1,2008.
173
Tarek K. Hassan is WI Associate Professor in the Department of Stmcturol Engineering,
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. He received his MSc and PhD from the University of
Manitoba. Winnipeg, ME. Canada, in 1999 and 2002, respectively. He is currently a
part-time Senior Structural Ellgineer at Dar At Handasah Consultants, Cairo, Egypt.
His research interests include nonlinear analysis wId design of concrere structures,
and repair and strengthening of concrere stmctures USing advanced composite materials,
ACI member Hatem M. ScHem is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department
of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering at NOr/h Carolina State
Universit)' (NCSU), Raleigh, NC. He received his PhD from NCSU in 2007 and his
ESc and MSc from Cairo Cairo, Egypt, in 2000 and 2002, respectively, His
reuarch interests include design of concrete structures using innovative materials and
retrofilling of reinforced nmcrete structures u.sing advanced composite materials.
Hazim Dwairi is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil EIIKineering,
Hashemire Unh'ersiry, Jordan. He received his PhD from North Carolina State
University in 2004. His research interests include design and analysis of concrete
structures and behavior of stmctures under lateral loads.
Sami H, Rizkalla, FACI, is a Distinguished Professor of Civil and Construction
Engineering in the Deportment of Civil, Constmction and Ellvironmental Engineering;
Director of the Constructed Facilities lAboratory (CFL); and Director of the NSF
Industry/University Cooperative Research Center at North Carolina State University.
He is also the immediate Past President and the founder of the Nerwork of Celllers of
Excellence on IlIIelligent Sensing of Innovative Stmctures (ISIS Canada). He is Past
Chair alld a current member of ACI Committees J 18, Use of Computers; 440, Fiber
Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; E803, Faculty Network Coordinating Comm;lIee;
and a member of Joint AClASCE Committees 423, Prestressed Concrete, and 550,
Precast Concrete Structures.
ACI Honorary Member Paul Zia is a Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at
North Carolina State University, He is a member of ACI Committees 363, High-
Strength Concrete, and 440, Fiber Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement; loilll ACl-
ASCE Committees 423, Prestressed COl1crete, and 445, Shear and Torsion; ACl TAC
Technology Transfer Committee; and the COllcrele ResearclJ COllneil.
concrete structures with smaller reinforcement ratios and
significantly reduced maintenance requirements compared
with conventional steeL The present experimental study
allows quantifying the benefits of using high-strength steel
and provides experimental evidence of its high strength
capabilities. The impact of the high tensile strength of the
material on the shear beha:vior of concrete beams is
demonstrated. The study also evaluates the limitations of the
current shear design provisions in the ACI Code
4
to develop
design guidelines that recognize its contribution to the shear
strength of concrete beams.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Test specimens
Six large-size concrete beams were constructed and
loaded to failure under concentrated load acting at midspan.
The main variables included in the study are the aid, concrete
compressive strength, and the type and amount of the longitu-
dinal steel reinforcement. All the beams had identical nominal
cross-sectional dimensions of 460 x 915 mm (18 x 36 in.) with
Table 1-Details of test specimens
Group A
a total length of 4900 mrn (16 ft). The dimensions of the
beams were selected to be much larger than those used in
developing the ACI shear design provisions established in
1962.
12
The beams were cast in three batches of different
concrete strengths, producing three groups (A, B, and C) of
identical dimensions. One beam of each group was rein-
forccd with conventional Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel
while the other beam was reinforced with high-strength
steel bars , No transverse reinforcement was provided in
any of the specimens to evaluate the nominal concrete shear
strength. The first group of beams (Group A) was tested at an
aid of 1.9. The influence of the concrete compressive
strength on the shear behavior was investigated by testing
the second group of beams (Group B) using the same aid of
1.9, but with a lower concrete compressive strength. The
third group of beams (Group C) was tested using an aid of
2.7 to examine the flexural shear behavior of the beams. The
longitudinal reinforcement ratio used in the concrete beams
reinforced with high-strength steel was 40% less than that
used in concrete beams reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi)
steel. This reduction in the reinforcement ratio is based on
using a yield strength of 690 MPa (100 ksi) for the high-
strength steel. The beams are identified by a numbering
code. The first letter denotes the type of the longitudinal steel:
G for Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel and M for high-strength
steel. The second term represents the aid, while the third
number denotes the concrete compressive strength in MPa.
Details of the test specimens are given in Table 1. The
longitudinal steel was evenly distributed along the width of
the specimens leaving 40 mm (1.5 in,) concrete cover on
each side. Bottom cover was chosen according to ACI 318-05
4
for beams subjected to interior exposure. The bottom
longitudinal steel bars were hooked upward beyond the
supports to preclude the possibility of anchorage failure.
Materials
High-strength steel- A commercially available high-
perfOlTIlanCe steel known as microcomposite multistructural
formable (MMFX) steel, which conforms to ASTM
A1035,13 was selected for this study. Tension coupons were
tested according to AS1M A370
14
to determine the material
characteristics of the bars. Typical stress-strain behavior of
the MMFX bars compared with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi)
steel bars is shown in Fig. I. The high-strength steel bars
exhibited a linear stress-strain relationship up to a stress
level of 690 MPa (100 ksi), followed by a nonlinear behavior
up to failure without a well-defined yield point. According to
Group B Group C
Specimen 0-1.9-51 M-1.9-51 0-1.9-38 M- 1.9-38 0 -2.7-32 0 -2.7-32
Shear span-depth ratio (aid) 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.7 2.7
Concrete compressive strength, MPa (psi) 51 (7400) 51 (7400) 38 (5500) 38 (5500) 32 (4650) 32 (4650)
Type of longitudinal reinforcement 0'
M'
0 '
M'
0' M'
Bottom reinforcement ratio, % 0.72 0.44 0.72 0.44 0.72 0.44
Top reinforcement ratio, % 0.36 0.22 0.36 0.22 0.36 0.22
Diagonal cracking load, kN (kips) 670 (150) 670 (150) 670 (150) 670 (150) 445 (100) 445 (100)
Failure load, k.N (kips) 871 (195) 1560 (350) 753 (170) 1364 (306) 552 (124) 638 (143)
Predicted failure load using ACI 318-05, kN (kips) 1103 (248) 1917 (431) 1103 (248) 1418 (319) 690 (155) 690 (155)
PTes/PACI318.05 0.8 0.81 0.68 0.96 0.80 0.92
G refers to Grade 60 steel.
tM refers to high-strength steel.
174 ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
ASTM A370
14
offset method (0.2%), the yield strength of
the bars was detennined to be 827 MPa (120 ksi). The
measured initial modulus of elasticity of the bars was 200 GPa
(29,000 ksi) up to a stress level of 690 MPa (100 ksi), beyond
which a considerable reduction in the modulus of elasticity
was observed. Based on test results, the average ultimate
tensile strength was 1120 MPa (162 ksi).
Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel- The Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi)
reinforcing bars used in the current study met the requirements
of ASTM A6l5.
15
Based on tension coupon tests, the bars
had an average modulus of elasticity and yield strength of
200 GPa (29,000 ksi) and 469 MPa (68 ksi), respectively.
m
a.

w
w

<n
1200 174
1000 145
MPa (120 ksi)
800 116
600 87
400 58
200 29
a a
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Strain (mm/mm), (in.lin.)


w
w

<n
Fig. i -Typical stress-strain behavior for conventional and
high-strength steel.
4900 mm (16 tt) .
Concrete- All beams were cast with nonnal-strength
concrete with a maximum aggregate size of 19 nun (0.75 in.)
using three different batches of concrete. The compressive
strength of the concrete was determined based on the average of
at least three 100 x 200 mm (4 x 8 in.) cylinders cast from the
same batch of concrete and cured under the same conditions as
the beams. The measured concrete compressive strength for
different specimens is given in Table 1.
Test setup
The beams were tested under a concentrated load acting at
midspan, as shown in Fig. 2. The load was applied using a
2000 kN (450 kips) hydraulic actuator. The beams were
supported on either steel I-beams or concrete blocks secured
to the strong floor. Neoprene pads were placed between the
concrete beam and the supports to allow for rotation at both
ends of the beam. A 25 mm (1 in.) thick steel plate was
attached to the actuator to distribute the load to. the beam.
Neoprene pads were placed between the loading plate and
the concrete surface to prevent local crushing of the
concrete. Each beam was instrumented to measure the
vertical deflections at midspan and at the supports using
string potentiometers. Twelve horizontal and vertical linear
potentiometers were used to measure diagonal crack widths.
Two PI gauges were attached to the top and bottom of the
beam at midspan to measure the concrete defonnation. All the
data were continuously recorded up to failure. Instrumentation
layout is shown in Fig. 3 and 4 for beams with aid of 1.9 and
2.7, respectively.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Deflections
The load-deflection behavior of the test specimens of
Group A having an aid of 1.9 and a concrete compressive
25 mm (1 in.) Thick Steel Plate
,2:bsomm

r
915 mm

10 in.)
(36 in.)
I
\
25 mm (lin.) Thick Neoprene Pad
-.
Steel I-beams
- --3050 mm (10 ft)}----->
...
.. -
- 4900 mm (16 ft}------ --- .-.-- - -- ---'
-.
r
.... ,.. -,
%Omm
1"111 in:J 65 mm
3 No. 19M 0" . , {2.5 In.}- "
(3#6) I
915 mm
(36 in.)
6 No. 19M ,
(6#6) 65 mil' --..
(2.5 in.)
Section a-a
Beam reinforced with high-strength steel
Fig. 2- Details of test specimens.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
25 mm (lin) Thick steel Plate
. .. .. :.J
460mm
tISTiif _ 65 mm
2 No. 25M+l No. 22MO . {2.5 in) i
(2#8+1#7) ,
91S'mm
(36 in.)
4 No. 2SM+2 No. 22M ,
(4#8+2#7) 65 mm I -
(2.5 in.)
Section a-a
Beam reinforced with conventional steel
175
strength of 51 MPa (7400 psi) is shown in Fig. 5. For both
specimens, linear behavior was observed up to the initiation
of the first flexural crack at a load level of 370 kN (83 kips)
followed by nonlinear behavior up to failure. Following the
fonnation of the flexural cracks, a major diagonal shear
crack developed and became visible in both specimens at a
load level of 670 kN (150 kips). After cracking, the
measured deflections of the concrete beam reinforced with
high-strength steel (Specimen M-1.9-51) were significantly
higher than those measured for the concrete beam reinforced
with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel (Specimen G-1.9-51).
This behavior is attributed to the reduced reinforcement ratio
Fig. 3- Instrumentation layout of beams with aid of 1.9.
Fig. 4- Instrumentation layout of beams with aid of 2. 7.
Mid-span deflection (in.)
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9
1800 405
1600
- G-1.9-S1 a/d=1. 9
360
- M-1.9-51
1400 315
Z
1200 270 VI
is g
u
1000
225 "


.Q
.Q
u
800 180

0.
1
0.
<{
600
d J I
135
400 90
T a T
200
,
45
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Mid-span deflection (mm)
Fig. 5-Load-deflection behavior of Group A specimens.
176
used in Specimen M-1.9-51, resulting in higher steel strain
and probable higher localized bond slip.
The behavior of concrete beams having the same aid of 1.9
but constructed with a lower concrete compressive strength
of 38 MPa (5500 psi) was investigated using Group B test
specimens. To simulate overloading conditions, both
Specimens G-1.9-38 and M-1.9-38 of Group B were initially
loaded to a load level of 450 kN (100 kips) and unloaded.
The specimens were reloaded up to failure to evaluate the
post-cracking stiffness for both specimens. The load-deflection
behavior of the second load cycle is shown in Fig. 6. The
measured post-cracking stiffness of Specimen G-1.9-38,
reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel, was 50%
higher than that of Specimen M-1.9-38, which is reinforced
with high-strength steel but with a reduced reinforcement ratio.
The load-deflection behavior of Group C beams with an aid
of2.7 and concrete strength of 32 MPa (4650 ksi) is shown
in Fig. 7. Similar to Group B specimens, the two specimens,
G-2.7-32 and M-2.7-32, were loaded to 225 kN (50 kips) and
unloaded before loading to failure to simulate overloading
conditions. The beam reinforced with high-strength steel
(M-2.7-32) exhibited higher deflections than the beam
reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel (G-2.7-32)
at the same load level. This behavior is attributed to the
smaller area of reinforcing steel used and higher induced
steel strain and probable more localized bond slips.
In general, concrete beams reinforced with Grade 420 MPa
(60 ksi) steel reinforcement exhibited less post-cracking
deflection at the same load level compared with beams
reinforced with high-strength steel because the latter had a
reduced reinforcement ratio. For beams reinforced with
Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel, failure was sudden and was
preceded by relatively little cracking. The measured ultimate
midspan deflection for the three beams reinforced with
Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel was less than the span/470. A
less brittle behavior was observed for the beams reinforced
with high-strength steel. Considerable deflections and much
wider cracks were observed for these beams prior to failure.
At failure, the deflections for the beams reinforced with the
high-strength steel and having an aid of 1.9 were equivalent
to the span/230, twice the deflections of the beams reinforced
with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel.
Mid-span deflection (in.)
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9
1800 405
1600
....... G-1.9-38
a/d=1.9
360
1400 315
Z
1200 270
is :;;;
u
1000 225 :;-


.Q
.Q
u
160

800
0.
0.

<{
600 135
400 90
T
200 45
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
Mid-span deflection (mm)
Fig. 6-Load-deflection behavior of Group B specimens.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
i
Crack pattern
For aU specimens, flexural cracks were first initiated under
the applied load. With further increase of load, new flexural
cracks formed in the shear spans and curved toward the
loading area. The first diagonal shear crack was observed at
the same load level for identical specimens regardless of the
type of reinforcement. For specimens reinforced with
Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel with an aid of 1.9, the first
diagonal shear crack was observed at a load level equivalent to
. 80% of the ultimate load. A similar crack was observed at a
load level of approximately 45% of the ultimate load for the
beams reinforced with high-strength steel. Such a phenomenon
demonstrates the reserved capacity for these beams and
provides adequate warning prior to shear failure. Figure 8(a)
depicts a typical crack pattern at the initiation of diagonal
shear cracks for Specimens M-1.9-51 and M-2.7-32, reinforced
with high-strength steel and having aid of 1.9 and 2.7, respec-
tively. Diagonal cracking loads for all the specimens are given
in Table 1. The width of the major diagonal shear crack for
different specimens is shown in Fig. 8(b). The figure clearly
shows that the major diagonal shear crack in the beams
reinforced with high-strength steel was almost three times
wider than that observed in identical beams reinforced with
Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel before failure. This is attributed
to the reduced reinforcement ratio used for high-strength steel.
Failure mode
Beams reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel-
Diagonal tension failure was observed for the three concrete
beams reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel. Failure
occurred due to extension of the diagonal shear crack rapidly
toward the load point shortly after its initiation. Strain
measurements at the bottom of the concrete beams at
midspan implied that yielding of the conventional steel
reinforcement governed the failure mode. A separate
nonlinear finite element study16 confirmed the observed
behavior and indicated yielding of the longitudinal conventional
reinforcement at the location of shear cracks, as shown in
Fig. 9 for Specimen G-1.9-51. Upon yielding of the longitudinal
steel reinforcement at the location of a shear crack, the
section was no longer capable of resisting any additional
increase in load and the concrete beams failed abruptly in
shear. Detailed information about the finite element modeling
is reported elsewhere.
16
Mid*Span Deflection (in.)
0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 D.B 0.9
1800 405
1600
--- M2.732
a/d=2.7
360
-+-G -2.7-32
1
1400
d I I
315
1200
"'
270 g
1000
T a T
225
,
0

u
BOD 1BO al

a. 'a.

600
135
'"
400 90
200 45
0 0
0 4 B 12 16 20 24
Mid"Span Deflection (mm)
Fig. 7- Load-deflection behavior of Group C specimens.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
Beams reinforced with high"strength steel- Failure was
controlled ptimarily by the compressive strength of the diagonal
strut (compression shear failure). The high yield strength of
the materials precluded diagonal tension failure and allowed
the failure to take place in the concrete strut at much higher
Diagonal crack width (in.)
o 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16
1800 405
1600
1400
Z 1200
"-
1000
g
] 800
L
i
-- :::: : l
--M-2.732
--G-2.7-32
-----
J 600 l.... __
400
1
200
(b)
o 0.5 1. 5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Diagonal crack width (mm)
360
315
270 -;;)
225 g
u
0
180 :;;
..
135 J
90
45
0
4
Fig. 8-(a) Crack pattern at initiation of diagonal shear
crack; and (b) diagonal crack width of different specimens.
Mid-span "''''''"--1
G1.9-51
longitudinal steel reinforcement
i .. 0.002)
Fig. 9-Typical tensile strain distribution at ultimate of concrete
beams reinforced with conventional Grade 60 steeL 16
177
loads. Typical tensile strains at the midspan section, for
Groups Band C, are shown in Fig. 10 and 11 , respectively.
The figures show that at ultimate, the measured tensile strain
in the high-strength steel bars exceeded its yield strain
defined by the 0.2% offset method. Typical shear failure of
concrete beams reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) and
high-strength steel is shown in Fig. 12.
Concrete shear strength
Despite the reduction in the reinforcement ratio, the shear
strength of concrete beams reinforced with high-strength
steel was significantly higher than that of the beams reinforced
with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel. The high yield strength
of the material maintained the capacity of the tension tie and
allowed the beams to resist more load until crushing of the
diagonal strut occurred. This behavior was highly
pronounced for beams with a small aid (aid = 1.9). The ultimate
load-carrying capacity of Specimen G-1.9-51, reinforced
with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel and having an aid of 1.9,
was 871 leN (195 kips). Test results showed that the concrete
shear strength could be increased by 80% but using 40% less
area of high-strength steel (Specimen Similar
behavior was observed for Specimens G-1.9-38 and M- l. 9-38.
As the tensile stress in the high-strength steel bars
approached its yield strength, wide cracks were observed
1800 405
a/d=1 .9
1600 360
1400 31 5
....... 1200 270 Iii
z
6
6
1000 225 '0
ro
.Q
.Q

800 180 :
ro
'B..
a.


"
600 135 <C
400 90
200 T
45
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Tensile strain (mm/mm). (in.lin.)
Fig. i O-Load-tensile strain behavior of Group B specimens.
1800 I

1
405
I 360 1600
-M-2.7-32
1400
j'"
! .!.

-1

270 I
Z
6
-g 1000 , 225 "0
.Q
.
BOO 180 ijl
a.
'5.

135 Jf
"
600
400 90
200 ald=2.7 45
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Tensile strain (mm/mm), (inJ!n.)
Fig. ii-Load-tensile strain behavior of Group C 'pecimens.
178
and the beneficial effect of using high-strength steel started
to attenuate. Such a phenomenon was clearly observed for
beams with an aid of 2.7. Using high-strength steel as main
longitudinal reinforcement in these beams increased the
shear strength by only 16% while using 40% less steel.
Failure loads for all specimens are summarized in Table 1.
COMPARISON WITH AC1318-05
Beams with aid of i.9- A simple strut-and-tie model was
developed as required by the ACI 318-05
4
for beams with a
clear span less than four times the depth of the beam. The
strut-and-tie model consisted of a direct strut extending from
the loading plate to the reaction bearing plate, as shown in
Fig. 13. Failure mechanisms governing the strength were
typically crushing of the compressive strut or yielding of the
tie reinforcement. To account for the nonlinear stress-strain
behavior of high-strength steel, an exponential stress-strain
relationship was assumed as reported by the Concrete innova-
tion Appraisal Services.
17
The bearing dimensions were
sufficiently large to avoid crushing of the concrete at the
nodes in the strut-and-tie model. The predicted ultimate
capacities for different specimens are given in Table 1. In
Fig. 12- Typical shear failure for beams reinforced with
conventional and steel.
I
(5.5 in.)
i strut 5trut ': ....... ! 915 mm
i .:....... I (36 in.)
180 mm (7 In )i 28 65 mm (2. 5 in. ) TIe 2 i

150 mm , I
(6 in.) ' ...
1525 mm (5 ft.} -_ . . - - - 1525 mm (5 R:.)
150 mm
. (6 in.)
Fig. 13-Strut-and-tie model for beams with aid of 1.9.
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
I
general, the analysis indicates that ACI 318-05
4
overestimated
the capacity of concrete beams reinforced with either
conventional- or high-strength steel. For Specimens G-1.9-51
and G-I .9-38 reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel,
failure was controlled by yielding of the tie. The predicted
capacity was independent of the concrete compressive strength
and, therefore, identical capacities were predicted for both
specimens. Conversely, crushi ng of the compressive strut
was the governing mode of failure for Specimens M-I.9-51
and M-1.9-38, reinforced with high-strength steel. Increasing
the concrete compressive strength by 34% increased the
predicted capacity by the same magnitude. The analysis
demonstrated the influence of the concrete compressive
strength on the shear strength of the concrete beams reinforced
with high-strength steel. The capacity of the compressive strut
was taken as O.S1i
e
', where/c' is the specified compressive
strength of concrete. It should be highlighted that, according
to ACI 318-05, the compressive capacity of the strut is
independent of the tensile strain in the reinforcement.
Beams with aid 0/2. 7-The nominal concrete shear strength
Vc was predicted according to ACI 318-05 using Eg. (I)
Vc = 0.167 Jt (MPa) (I MPa = 145 psi) (I)
The ACI 318-05
4
design method considerably overestimated
the shear strength of large-size concrete beams constructed
without web reinforcement. The diagonal shear crack was
initiated in the beams with an aid of2.7 and became visible at a
load level of 445 kN (100 kips), which corresponds to
0.11 Jt MPa. The predicted capacity for Specimen G-2.7-32,
reinforced with conventi onal steel, was 25% higher than the
measured value (shear strength corresponds to 0.134 Jt MPa).
It should be noled that the current ACI shear provisions were
based on testing shallow beams, 13 which did not account for the
size effect of large-size beams.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of this investigation, the following
concl usions can be drawn:
1. High-strength steel strongly influenced the shear
behavior of the concrete beams tested in the current study
and conslmcted without web reinforcement. Ignoring the
high strength characleristics of the material could provide
unreli able predictions of the ultimate load-carrying capacity
and mode of failure;
2. The diagonal cracking strength is a measure of the
concrete contribution at ultimate for members reinforced with
conventional steel and constructed without web reinforcement.
Such a relationship is inappropriate for high-strength steel as
the behavior is strongly influenced by the aid and the stress
level in the bars. Test results showed that initiation of diagonal
shear cracks is independent of the type or the amount of the
longitudinal reinforcement;
3. Concrete beams reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi)
steel and constructed without web reinforcement exhibited a
very brittle failure due to yielding of the longitudinal steel
reinforcement. Shear failure occurred shortly after initiation
of the shear crack;
4. Despite the reduction in the reinforcement ratio by 40%,
the shear strength of concrete beams reinforced with high-
strength steel was significantly higher than that of the beams
reinforced with Grade 420 MPa (60 ksi) steel. The high yield
strength of the material maintained the capacity of the
ACI Structural Journal/March-April 2008
tension tie, and thus enabled the beams to resist more load
until crushing of the diagonal strut occurred;
5. A significant reserve in strength was observed for beams
reinforced with high-strength 'Steel after diagonal cracking.
Failure was due to crushing of the diagonal concrete Slmt at
much higher loads compared with beams reinforced with
conventional steel; and
6. The ACI 318-05 si mplified expression for the shear
contribution of concrete is unconservative for large-size concrete
beams without web reinforcement. The expression needs to
account for the size effect and the reinforcement characteristics.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the donation of the materials provided by
MMFX Technologies Corp., CA. Special thanks are extended to A. Rasoy,
E. Thorup. and J. Atkinson at the Constructed Facilities Laboratory for their
valuable help during the experimental program.
REFERENCES
1. Reis, H.; Elvin, B. L.; Kuchma, D. A; and Bernhard, 1. T., "Estimation of
Corrosion Damage in Steel Reinforced Mortar Using Guided Waves,"
Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, V. 127, No.3, 2005, pp. 255-261.
2. Darwin, D.; Browning, 1.; Nguyen, T. V; and Locke, C., "Mechanical
and Corrosion Properties of a High-Strength, High Chromium Reinforcing
Steel for Concrete," SM Report No. 66, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
KS, 2002, 106 pp.
3. Seliem, H.; Hosny, A.; Dwairi, H.; and RizkalJa, S . "Shear Behavior of
Concrete Beams Rcinforced with MMFX. Steel Without Web Reinforcement,"
Report No. IS-06-08, Constructed Facilities Laboratory, NOllh Carolina
State University, Raleigh, NC, 2006, 21 pp.
4. ACl Committee 318. "Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACl318-05) and Commentary (3 18R-05)," Amencan Concrete
Institute. Fannington Hill s, MI, 2005, 430 pp.
5. Commission of the European Communities, "Design of Concrete
Structures. Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings," Eurocode 2, 2003,
330pp.
6. DIN 1045- 1. Deutsche Norm. "Concrete. Reinforced and Prestressed
Concrete Structures- Part I : Design," Normenausschuss Bauwesen
(NABau) im DiN Deutsches l nsti tut fur Normung e. V. Beuth Verlag,
Berlin, Germany. 2001, pp. 1-48.
7. Hawkins, N. M.; Kuchma, D. A.; Mast, R. F.; and Reineck, K.,
"Simplified Shear Design of Structural Concrete Members," NCHRP
Report 549. Washington, DC, 2005, 54 pp.
8. Kani. O. N. 1. , "How Safe are Our Large Reinforced Concrete
Beams?" ACI Structural Journal, V. 64, No. 4, Apr. 1967, pp. 128-141.
9. BaZant, Z. P., and Yu. Q., "Designing Against Size Effect on Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups: Formulation,"
Joumai ofSrnlctural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 12, 2005, pp. 1877-1885.
to. Sherwood, E. G. ; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., "Evaluation of
Shear Design Methods for Large. Lightly-Reinforced Concrete Beams,"
Proceedings of the Advances in Engineering StruclUres, Mechanics and
Construction, ON, Canada. 2006, pp. 153-164.
I I. Duthinh, D. , "Senstivity of Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
and Prestressed Concrete Beams to Shear Friction and Concrete Softening
According to Modified Compression Field Theory," ACI Structural
Journal, V. 96, No.4, Jul y-Aug. 1999, pp. 495-508.
12. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 326, "Shear and Diagonal Tension,"
ACIJOURNAL, Proceedings V. 59, No. 1-3, 1962. pp. 1-30,277-344,
and 352-396.
13. ASTM AI035-07, "Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain,
Low Carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement," ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 5 pp.
14. ASTM A370-07, "Standard Test Methods and Definitions for
Mechanical Testi ng of Steel Products," ASTM International . West
Conshohocken, PA, 2007, 47 pp.
15. ASTM A615-06, "Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain
Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement," ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2006, 6 pp.
16. Hassan, T., "Behavior of Concrete Deep Beams Reinforced with
High Strength Steel," Ain Shams Scientific Bulletin, V. 41, No.3, 2007,
pp.109- 127.
17. Concrete Innovation Appraisal Services, (CIAS), "Structural Design
Criteria for High-Strength MMFX Microcomposite Reinforcing Bars,"
CIAS Report: 04- 1, 2004, 34 pp.
179