Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 16

Shear Strength Components in

Reinforced Concrete Members


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Yu-Fei Wu, M.ASCE 1; and Biao Hu 2

Abstract: The shear strength (V) of reinforced concrete (RC) beams consists of two parts: shear resistance of concrete (V c ) and contribution
of the transverse reinforcement (V s ). Previous experimental results can only give the total shear strength V of a beam. Until now, no existing
experimental means could measure the two aforementioned contributions separately with reasonable accuracy during the test of RC beams.
This paper reports an experimental method that is able to quantify the two parts in conventional shear tests of RC beams. This was achieved by
measuring the strains along the full length of each stirrup in the shear span without disturbing the bond. Thus, the variation in V c and V s can
be recorded during a beam test. Preliminary tests using this method on particular beams show that not all the shear reinforcement intersecting
a critical diagonal crack yields at the onset of shear strength. Both V c and V s are not at their maximum values when the shear strength is
reached in a beam. The value of V c is not constant under increasing deformation: it first increases and slightly drops after it reaches a peak,
followed by a relatively stable plateau until final shear failure. The variation in V c with respect to member deformation does not match the
predictions of existing models. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001832. 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Reinforced concrete; Shear strength; Test; Shear strength of concrete; Concrete and masonry structures.

Introduction Zhang et al. (2015) found that stirrups rarely reach full yielding
at shear failure. This is supported by the test results in this work.
The shear behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) members is a The contribution of concrete V c is complicated and involves
classic but challenging problem that has attracted the continuous three main mechanisms: the shear resistance of concrete in the un-
interest of the research community over the past century. Despite cracked compression zone, the aggregate interlock at the cracked
significant progress in the understanding and modeling of this interface, and the dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcement.
problem, it is regarded as one of the least understood but most im- The magnitudes of these three mechanisms and V s vary throughout
portant problems in reinforced concrete. After development of the the loading process and depend on cracking pattern and deforma-
truss models by Ritter (1899), which neglected the contribution of tion (Cavagnis et al. 2015). The shear transfer mechanisms have
concrete in tension, the shear capacity of an RC beam (V) has been been well documented in the literature (ACI-ASCE Committee
generally attributed to two parts: the contribution of concrete (V c ) 326 1962; ACI-ASCE Committee 455 1998; ASCE-ACI Committee
and that of shear reinforcement (V s ). This superposition method- 426 1973; Foraboschi 2006, 2012a, b).
ology has been adopted in most of the current design codes Numerous empirical and analytical models have been proposed
[AASHTO 2009; CSA 2004; American Concrete Institute (ACI) to calculate V c of RC beams with and without shear reinforcement.
318-14 (ACI 2014)] for predicting the nominal shear strength of One of the most popular and extensively studied empirical models
RC beams. for V c is the one in ACI 318-14. Bazant and Kim (1984) proposed a
The value of V s is determined by summation of individual trans- model based on fracture mechanics to consider the size effect.
verse forces in all transverse reinforcement that intersects a critical Meanwhile, several so-called knowledge-based models have been
diagonal shear crack. The number of stirrups contributing to V s developed with the purpose not only to calculate V c but also to
depends on the spacing of the shear reinforcement and the inclina- uncover the shear transfer mechanisms. Typical analytical models
tion of the critical diagonal crack. The force in individual transverse include the tooth model (Kani 1964), critical shear crack theory
reinforcement is determined by its strain. Standard ACI 318-14 (CSCT) (Muttoni and Fernndez Ruiz 2008; Fernndez et al.
(ACI 2014) adopts a simple 45 crack model to determine the extent 2009), modified compression field theory (MCFT) (Vecchio and
of the critical crack, whereas Standard EC2-04 (CEN 2004) and Collins 1986), and the fixed-angle softened-truss model (FA-STM)
Standard CSA-04 (CSA 2004) consider the variation in the crack (Pang and Hsu 1996).
angle. These truss models assume that all stirrups intersecting The superposition of V c and V s for calculation of V is widely
the critical diagonal crack yield at the onset of shear capacity. adopted by existing design codes and in the literature. This method
is correct only under two scenarios: (1) V c and V s are constant;
1
Professor, School of Engineering, RMIT Univ., Melbourne 3001, or (2) V c and V s vary when the beam deforms, but the code-
Australia; formerly, Dept. of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City Univ. recommended values occur exactly at the onset of beam peak shear
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China (corresponding author). E-mail: resistance. However, V c is believed to decrease with increasing
yufei.wu@rmit.edu.au member displacement (Priestley et al. 1994; Muttoni and
2
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City Univ.
Fernndez Ruiz 2008), although no direct test data are available
of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 5, 2016; approved on
to substantiate this. On the other hand, V s increases when crack
February 24, 2017; published online on May 13, 2017. Discussion period width or shear slip increases due to increasing strain in the shear
open until October 13, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for reinforcement. Until today, the superposition rule of V c and V s for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer- calculation of V has been a fundamental assumption that has not
ing, ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445. been validated by experimental testing.

ASCE 04017092-1 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


The experimental approach proposed in this work can directly shear crack observed from tests and the strain of the particular
evaluate V c and V s and record their variations throughout the load- transverse bars at the exact position where a particular transverse
ing process in a beam test. This new development opens the door bar intersects the diagonal shear crack. When all V si are deter-
for answering fundamental and critical questions. As a pilot work, mined, V c can be calculated from Eq. (1).
seven beams were tested using this method. Details of the tests To prevent disturbance of the bond by closely spaced strain
are reported, studied, and discussed with regard to the previously gauges installed on the surface of reinforcing bars, strain gauges
stated critical questions. The main variables of the tests were the should be installed inside the reinforcement (Viawathanatepa
maximum aggregate size and type and spacing of the transverse et al. 1979; Hamza and Naaman 1996). Two methods are avail-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

reinforcement. able to minimize bond disturbance: (1) cut a rebar into two
halves and install strain gauges inside a small cavity at the
center of the bar (Jiang et al. 2014); and (2) cut a small recess
Experimental Methodology (conduit) on the surface of a rebar for installation of strain
gauges (Zhao 2012). Optical fibers, which are small and mea-
Components of the shear resistance around a diagonal shear crack sure strain distribution along the full length are an ideal choice
are shown in Fig. 1. From the equilibrium of the free body in the for strain measurement. However, conventional electrical strain
vertical direction, one has gauges with close spacing are used in this work because of the
X
n authors unfavorable experience with strain measurement by
V Vc Vs Vc V si 1 optical fiber.
1 The design of the shear reinforcement and the strain measure-
ment system adopted in this work are shown in Figs. 24. Because
where V si = force in the ith transverse bar; and n = total number of strain gauges and wires are installed inside a bar [Figs. 2(b and c)],
transverse bars crossing the critical diagonal crack. use of straight bars is preferred to replace closed stirrups to avoid
Determination of V si is by measuring the strain of the transverse complications in the strain measurement system. Straight trans-
bar at the location that intersects the critical diagonal crack. In verse bars have been adopted in the shear tests of RC beams
Fig. 1, V cc , S sin , and V cd are the shear strength component from (Varney et al. 2011; Qin et al. 2015). With proper anchorage of
the concrete in the uncracked compression zone, the aggregate the straight bars, there is no significant difference between this kind
interlock and dowel action, respectively. of shear reinforcement and the conventional closed stirrups (Varney
To determine V s , two methods have been widely adopted to et al. 2011). This conclusion is further confirmed in the current
measure the strain in the transverse reinforcement: (1) attaching work by comparing the test results of two beams, one with the
strain gauges at midheight of stirrups (Arezoumandi et al. 2014; straight shear reinforcement and the other with conventional closed
Lee et al. 2015; Lee and Kim 2008; Sherwood et al. 2006; stirrups.
Varney et al. 2011); and (2) installing strain gauges on the surface
of stirrups along an assumed diagonal crack (Laskar et al. 2010; Li
and Leung 2015; Munikrishna et al. 2011; Qin et al. 2015; Tompos Experimental Program
and Frosch 2002). These methods cannot obtain accurate values of
V si for two reasons. The first is that the bond between the reinforc-
Fabrication of Shear Reinforcement Bar and Strain
ing bar and the concrete significantly affects the strain distribution
Gauge Installation
(Zhao et al. 2012). Direct attachment of strain gauges on the
rebar surface distorts the strain distribution of a reinforcing bar The transverse bars used in this work are shown in Fig. 2(a). These
(Viawathanatepa et al. 1979; Hamza and Naaman 1996); the second bars were fabricated according to the following steps:
is that the path of the critical diagonal crack is not known a priori. 1. Screw threads were made on the surface of the bar at the two
Thus, the strains measured either at the midheight of the transverse ends for anchorage;
reinforcement or along an imaginary diagonal shear crack are not 2. The bar was cut (mechanical CNC wire-cut) into two halves
the real ones that occur on the path of an actual critical diagonal longitudinally and a cavity of 6 mm in width and 1.5 mm in
crack. depth was made at the center of each half bar [Fig. 2(b)];
Because of the uncertainty of the critical diagonal crack in both 3. Strain gauges (10 mm in length, 2 mm in width) were placed in
its location and extent, a reliable way to obtain the actual value of the cavities covering the region between tension and compres-
V si is to measure the strain of all the transverse bars along the full sion longitudinal reinforcement [Fig. 2(b)]; a total of 9 and 8
height of each bar in the full shear span. With such a full record of strain gauges were installed in the deformed and plain bars, re-
strain, V si can be identified based on the location of a diagonal spectively; the exact locations of the strain gauges relative to the

Fig. 1. Components of shear resistance

ASCE 04017092-2 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Strain gauge installation: (a) rejoined straight bars; (b) strain gauging; (c) wiring of strain gauges; (d) steel ring fasteners; (e) layout of strain
gauges

Fig. 3. Anchorage of shear reinforcement bars: (a) typical steel cage; (b) top anchor

ASCE 04017092-3 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


ncrete wit
Conc ith a max. Conc
oncrete wit
ith a max.
Y12@25 agg. size of 10 mm Stee
eell plate Y12@40 Mixed
ed zo
zone ze of 20 mm
agg. size 250

2Y10

300
30
2Y20

200 Gauge 1 tto 6 @122


Ga Gauge
ge 1 tto 6 @122 200
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2Y25
235 235
120 710 440 710 120

(a)
245 Y12@185 250

2Y10
300
30

2Y20

200 200 2Y25


Gauge
auge 1 to 4 @ 203 Gauge 1 tto 4 @ 20
203
235 235
120 710 440 710 120

(b)
300 R12@12
123 250

2Y10
300

2Y20

200
20 200
20 2Y25
235 Gaug
uge 1 to 4 @ 20
203 Gauge 1 to 4 @ 203
235
120
12 710
71 440 710 120
12
(c)
Conc te with
Concrete ith a ma
max.
Y12@1
2@185 gg. sizee of 10 mm
agg.
250
245
45

2Y10
10
300

2Y20
20

200 200 2Y25


2Y
Gauge 1 to 4 @ 20
203 Gauge 1 to 4 @ 203
Gau 03
235 235
120 710 440 710 120
20
(d)

Fig. 4. Details of RC beam specimens: (a) N10 and N20; (b) D10 and D20; (c) R10 and R20; (d) D10C

bottom of the beam are shown in Fig. 2(e); because of the small treatment (sanding and cleaning with acetone); together with
size of the cavities, thin wires (wrapping wire 30 AWG) were the silicone sealant, the epoxy resin was used to seal the cut
adopted to replace normal ones; the wires were led out from one and prevent water leakage into the cavity during concrete
end of a bar [Figs. 2(a) and 3(b)]; casting; and
4. After the wires were connected to the strain gauges, a thin layer 7. Two mechanical steel rings were used to fix the two ends of the
of wax was applied to the surface of each strain gauge for pro- bar while the epoxy resin was wet [Fig. 2(d)]; these two rings
tection and separation, and a light coat of insulation paint was stayed with the bar permanently as additional anchors to en-
applied on the connections; hance end anchorage; they were located in the concrete cover
5. Soft silicone sealant was applied in the cavity to fix the wires in and therefore did not affect the bond between the concrete
position and act as protection and waterproofing during concrete and the bar.
casting [Fig. 2(c)]; This procedure ensured the integrity of the transverse bars dur-
6. The two halves of the steel bar were joined together by ing testing, as demonstrated by the consistent strain readings from
Araldite epoxy resin applied over the cut faces after surface strain gauges mounted on the two halves of a bar.

ASCE 04017092-4 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


Anchorage of Shear Reinforcement Table 1. Mechanical Properties of Steel Reinforcement

The anchorage of shear reinforcement can significantly influence Shear


V s (Regan and Reid 2004). Headed shear reinforcement can be Longitudinal bars reinforcement bars
used provided that the mechanical anchor is capable of developing Y12 R12
the yield strength of the bar without crushing the concrete original/ original/
(CSA-04). In this work, the following mechanisms were used to Property Y10 Y20 Y25 rejoined rejoined
properly anchor the transverse bars: Yield strength (MPa) 591 523 579 442 293
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1. Two steel rings were fixed at the ends of a transverse bar as Elastic modulus (GPa) 198 183 194 180 187
mentioned in the previous section; Yield strain (%) 0.31 0.34 0.29 0.22 0.16
2. Two horizontal bars were placed at the top and bottom tied to the
two legs of the vertical transverse bars [Fig. 3(a)]; although the
tie connection was not as strong as welding (the heat produced
by welding would destroy the strain gauges inside a transverse 600
bar), they helped to provide a stress condition as close as pos- 500
sible to that in actual closed stirrups; and
3. Nuts and washers were attached to the two ends of a transverse 400

Stress (MPa)
bar on the top and bottom surfaces of a beam [Fig. 3(b)]; to
improve the local anchorage, a small quantity of epoxy resin 300
(Sikadur 30) was applied under the washers before tightening Y12 original
the nuts. 200 Y12 rejoined
R12 original
100
R12 rejoined
Beam Specimens
0
Seven RC beam tests were conducted to validate the effectiveness 0 20000 40000 60000 80000
of the test method. The beam specimens had a cross section of Strain (10 -6)
250 300 mm and a length of 2,100 mm. The whole length of
Fig. 5. Stress-strain curves of shear reinforcement bars
a beam specimen was divided into three regions: two test regions
at the two ends as two separate cantilever beams and a supporting
region located in the middle. The shear span/depth ratio (a=d) of all
beam specimens was 2.6. The maximum aggregate size was differ- confirmed that the cutting and rejoining did not affect the material
ent for the two test regions: 10 mm for one side and 20 mm for properties of the bars. The average value of the mechanical proper-
another, except for Specimen D10C [Fig. 4(d)], which was used ties of three cut and rejoined bars and three normal ones are listed in
for calibration. More details are shown in Fig. 4. Table 1. The stress-strain curves of the bars are shown in Fig. 5.
The main test variables were shear reinforcement type (de- In the following calculations, the average stress-strain curve of the
formed or plain round bar, characterized by strong and weak bond, three cut and rejoined bars is used to determine the exact tensile
respectively) and maximum aggregate size. Each test was identified stress in the shear reinforcement based on the strain measured from
by a letter (D, R, or N) and a number (10 or 20). Letters denoted the the tests.
type of shear reinforcement: deformed bar (D), plain round bar (R), The concrete for all specimens was designed to be grade C30
and no shear reinforcement (N). Numbers indicated the size of the (compressive strength = 30 MPa). Two concrete mixes with differ-
maximum aggregate. For instance, N10 specified a shear test with- ent maximum aggregate sizes (10 and 20 mm) were used for cast-
out shear reinforcement and with a maximum aggregate size of
ing the two sides of a beam separately. During casting, each type of
10 mm. D10C in Fig. 4(d) has an extra letter, C, that stood for nor-
concrete was poured into its own side of the formwork simultane-
mal closed stirrups. This beam was designed for comparison with
ously and joined in the middle where the support of beam was lo-
beams reinforced with straight shear reinforcement.
cated (Fig. 4). After demolding, the specimens were wrapped with
All the beams were reinforced with identical flexural reinforce-
two layers of polyethylene that were watered twice a day to ensure
ment (Fig. 4). The compression bars were anchored by standard
that the specimens remained wet for 28 days. Four concrete cylin-
hooks. The longitudinal reinforcing bars were welded to the closely
ders (150 mm in diameter and 300 mm in height) were cast for each
spaced stirrups at the end zone of a cantilever beam outside the test
region to improve the anchorage. The shear reinforcement had a side of a beam and cured under the same conditions as the beams.
diameter of 12 mm for both deformed and plain bars. The spacing The cylinders were tested to determine the compressive strength
of shear reinforcement was chosen to ensure that t fyt was the of concrete on the particular side of a beam on the exact day the
same for specimens with deformed and plain round bars, where beam test was conducted. The compressive strength of concrete
t and f yt were the ratio and yield strength of the transverse was determined from the average value of four cylinders (Table 2).
reinforcement, respectively. Because the yield strength of the trans-
verse reinforcement in the R group was approximately 2=3 of that Test Setup and Instrumentation
in the D group, the reinforcement ratio in the R group was 3=2
times that of the D group. A schematic of the test setup is shown in Figs. 6(a and b). One test
was conducted at one side of a beam as a cantilever. The middle
part and the other side were used as supports. This design was
Material Properties adopted because of the limited load capacity of the actuator. If
Tensile tests were carried out to evaluate the mechanical properties the beam is tested as a simply supported beam, the maximum shear
of the reinforcing bars. To find whether the longitudinal cutting force that can be applied to it is only half of the load capacity of the
affected the material properties of the transverse reinforcement, actuator. To avoid significant loading to the other side of the beam
the cut and rejoined bars [Fig. 2(a)] were also tested. The tests when testing one side, the steel rods in the middle of the beam

ASCE 04017092-5 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


Table 2. Summary of Specimens and Test Results had gained sufficient strength, the other side of the beam
Specimen f c0 Concrete l t V cr Vm V f Failure was tested. A similar test scheme was adopted by Varney et al.
identifier (MPa) age (days) (%) (%) (kN) (kN) (kN) mode (2011).
A 500-kN MTS actuator was used for applying a point load at
N10 36.4 75 2.38 86.2 116.5 87.6 S
N20 37.3 79 2.38 77.6 184.5 180.2 S the end of the cantilever beam, where heavy reinforcement was pro-
D10 40.5 89 2.38 0.41 76 218.1 203.1 S vided to prevent local failure. The load was applied in a displace-
D20 38.9 98 2.38 0.41 248 237.9 S ment control mode at the rate of 0.005 mm=s. One LVDT mounted
R10 37 79 2.38 0.62 76 236.9 217 S on a steel reference frame [Figs. 6(a and d)] was used to measure
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

R20 35.5 89 2.38 0.62 258.7 213 S the transverse deflection of the cantilever beam. Because the refer-
D10C 32 98 2.38 0.49 88 231.6 S ence frame (steel angle) was fixed to the body of the cantilever
Note: S = shear failure; l = flexural reinforcement ratio; t = shear beam at its support, the LVDT reading gave the displacement of
reinforcement ratio. the cantilever tip relative to its support, which was exactly the de-
formation of the beam (Wu et al. 2003, 2008). Two other LVDTs
were used to monitor possible torsion of the beam at its cantilever
[Fig. 6(a)] were prestressed to act as a fixed end support. Theoreti- tip [Fig. 6(d)].
cally, the load applied on the other side of the beam [F4 in Fig. 6(b)] The strains of the longitudinal tension bars were measured by
is zero if the middle support is an ideal fixed end support. However, strain gauges mounted on the longitudinal bars [Figs. 3(a) and 4].
a small rotation of the middle support is unavoidable, which causes A few strain gauges were also installed on the side faces of the
F4 to be much smaller than F1 . concrete beams for verification of the strain readings from the dig-
After testing one side, the beam was rotated 180 degrees for ital image correlation (DIC) [Fig. 6(c)]. The DIC system has
another test on the other side. Because significant damage occurred proved to be highly effective and accurate for continuously cap-
at the tested side, the failure zone was grouted with epoxy mortar turing strain fields and crack development on a test specimen
(a mixture of Sikadur-300 and river sand) and clamped with steel surface in various types of experimental works conducted by
plates and rods [Fig. 6(c)]. By tightening the rods, large diagonal the authors group (Wu and Jiang 2013a, b; Jiang et al. 2014;
cracks were closed back. One week later, when the repair mortar Wu et al. 2015).

Rubber blanket Steel plate Loading point


Steel reference frame

LVDT
25 High tensile
strength screw rod
Strong floor

(a)
F2 F1

F4 F3

(b)

Strengthened zone Actuator

LVDTs

Steel reference

Cameras

(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Cantilever beam test: (a) schematic; (b) external forces; (c) test setup; (d) displacement measurement

ASCE 04017092-6 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


145 330 515 700

D20
D10 Stirrup

Crack 1 Crack 2
(a)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

200 325 450 575 700


,
A
A
B
B
Crack 1 Crack 2

(b) (c) (d)

Crack 1
Crack 1 Crack 2

(e) (f) (g)

Fig. 7. Crack patterns: (a) D10; (b) R10; (c) N10; (d) N20; (e) D20; (f) R20; (g) D10C

Test Results have failed and they actually did fail in the second mode. It was
observed that the number and extent of the diagonal cracks in-
Failure Mode creased with increasing load.
For Specimen N10, a sudden but small drop of load was ob-
The crack patterns of the specimens are shown in Fig. 7, and the served from the load-displacement curve [Point A in Fig. 8(c)]
load-displacement curves are shown in Fig. 8. Governed by the a=d at the moment when a major diagonal crack occurred. A similar
ratio, shear failure of RC beams can normally be classified into phenomenon was observed for Specimen N20. The cracking
three modes: (1) crashing or splitting of concrete failure with patterns recorded by DIC corresponding to Points A (86 kN), B
a=d smaller than 2; (2) shear compression or flexural tension fail- (72 kN), C (78 kN), and D (77 kN) in Fig. 8(c) are shown in Fig. 9.
ure of the compressive zone with 2 < a=d < 3; and (3) flexural- Clearly, there was a change in crack pattern after formation of the
shear failure with 3 < a=d < 7 (Park and Paulay 1975). Because major diagonal crack. The onset of the diagonal crack caused re-
a=d is equal to 2.6 for the test specimens, all specimens should distributions of stresses and shear transfer actions, which enabled

250 300 200


N10
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

200 250 N20


150
200
150
150 100
100
N10 100 N20
D20 50
50 D10 50
R10 R20
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(a) Deflection of beam (mm) (b) Deflection of beam (mm) (c) Deflection of beam (mm

300 300 250


Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)


Shear force (kN)

250 250 200


200 200
150
150 150
100
100 100
D10 R10 D10
50 50 50
D20 R20 D10C
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(d) Deflection of beam (mm) (e) Deflection of beam (mm) (f) Deflection of beam (mm)

Fig. 8. Shear force versus deflection curves: (a) 10-mm aggregate; (b) 20-mm aggregate; (c) without shear bars; (d) deformed shear bars; (e) plain
shear bars; (f) comparison of D10 and D10C

ASCE 04017092-7 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


Fig. 9. Cracks captured by DIC: (a) Point A; (b) Point B; (c) Point C; (d) Point D
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the beam to carry further loading. A beam fails when the redistrib- 300

Distance from bottom of beam(mm)


uted stresses or load transfer mechanisms cannot meet force
equilibrium. For these two specimens, the critical diagonal crack 250
extended from the loading point to the support.
200 N10
For Specimens D10 and R10, more diagonal cracks were ob-
N20
served compared with Specimens N10 and N20. This was due to D10
150
the restraining effect of transverse reinforcement on the propaga- D20
tion of cracking. The critical crack of each specimen was charac- R10
100
terized by the largest crack width [Figs. 7(a and b)]. The angles of R20
the critical diagonal cracks for the two specimens were similar at 50
midheight. Specimens D20 and R20 were the second test of a
beam. Minor precracks formed during the tests of D10 and R10 0
[Fig. 7(a)]. New cracks formed along the path of the precracks, be- 0 1 2 3 4 5
tween which additional diagonal cracks developed during the tests Crack width (mm)
[Figs. 7(e and f)]. Notably, such minor existing cracks have a neg- Fig. 10. Distribution of crack width along critical diagonal cracks at
ligible effect on the shear strength of members (Birrcher et al. onset of shear strength
2009), as further discussed later. It is also seen later that the minor
cracks constituted an additional variation in the test results showing
the effect of precracking on the shear strength of beams. No pre-
crack was observed on the surface of N20 because N10 failed at a et al. (2011) and Lee et al. (2015), who used crack comparator and
lower shear load. LVDT, respectively, to measure crack width.

Crack Width Distribution Load-Deflection Curves and Shear Strength


As shown in Fig. 7(c), Points A and B are two points on the surface The load-deflection curves of the seven tests are shown in Fig. 8.
of the beam and Line AB is perpendicular to a particular crack For comparison in terms of the effects of the different variables,
before the crack occurs. Points A and B move to A and B, respec- the curves are shown in different groups. Three characteristic
tively, after cracking. The DIC can accurately capture the move- shear force values can be identified from each testnamely, the
ment of the points. The crack width is the separation of the two shear force at the formation of the primary shear crack (V cr ),
!
points along the direction of vector AB , which can be mathemati- the shear capacity or maximum shear resistance (V m ), and the post-
cally calculated by peak shear resistance at the onset of sudden collapse of the beam
! ! (V f ). Identification of V cr can be made from the sudden change in
!
0 0 AB A 0 B 0 ! the strain of transverse reinforcement. For specimens without trans-
w jA B j cos j AB j 2
jABjjA 0 B 0 j verse reinforcement, V cr can be identified from the sudden drop of
the curve in Fig. 8, as illustrated by Points A and C in Fig. 8(c).
Fig. 10 shows the crack width variation along the critical diago- Foraboschi (2015) adopted a similar way to identify V cr from the
nal crack path of each test specimen at the onset of shear strength. discontinuity of the measured load-displacement plot. In Fig. 8, V m
The critical diagonal cracks are Crack 2 for D10, R10, and D20, is the peak of the load-displacement curve; V f can be determined
and Crack 1 for R20. Specimens N10 and N20 have only one major from the load-deflection curve as the point where the load drops
diagonal crack. The y-axis gives the distance of the cracking posi- sharply. The three characteristic shear forces are summarized in
tion from the bottom of a beam. The location of maximum crack Table 2.
width is 100150 mm from the bottom of a beam, whereas smaller
crack widths occur at the tip and end of a crack for all specimens.
The inclination of the critical diagonal crack is 42, 40, 36, 38, Discussion
41, and 40 for N10, N20, D10, D20, R10, and R20, respectively,
which were measured at the midheight.
Comparison of Members with Straight and Closed
As expected, the crack widths of the specimens without trans-
Shear Reinforcement
verse reinforcement are much larger than those with transverse
reinforcement. It is also observed that the maximum crack width The structural behavior of Specimen D10 is compared with that of
of D10 and D20 is slightly greater than that of R10 and R20, re- Specimen D10C in this section. The crack modes of the two beams
spectively. This indicates that the maximum diagonal crack width is are shown in Fig. 7(a) for D10 and in Fig. 7(g) for D10C. Fig. 8(f)
greater if a higher yield strength of shear reinforcement is used compares the load versus deflection curves, and Fig. 11(c) relates
when t fyt is the same. A similar trend was found by Munikrishna the strains in the flexural reinforcement. It can be seen in Fig. 8(f)

ASCE 04017092-8 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


that the shear capacity of D10C is 6.2% greater than that of D10, plain round bars) is larger than that of D specimens (with deformed
likely because of the reduced shear reinforcement area made by the bars) [Figs. 8(a and b)]. Similar test results were obtained by Lee
cavity in the transverse bars. et al. (2015); that is, with the same t fyt and bond characteristics
As shown in Fig. 11(c), the strains of the longitudinal reinforce- but different yield strength and stirrup spacing, specimens with
ment are very similar for the two beams at Strain Gauges 1, 2, and 4 higher strength but a lower ratio of stirrups tend to have a lower
(for locations of the strain gauges, refer to Fig. 4) during the whole shear capacity. This may be attributed to the larger shear reinforce-
loading process. It is well known that both shear force and flexural ment ratio in the R specimens, which provides more even confine-
moment affect the strain in longitudinal reinforcement (Park and ment to restrain the propagation of the critical diagonal crack and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pauay 1975; Vecchio and Collins 1986). Because the magnitude the compression zone of the concrete, subsequently intensifying
and distribution of the bending moment of the two beams are nearly the aggregate interlocking and resistance of concrete in the com-
the same, this result indicates that the development of shear force pression zone.
in the two beams is similar. Thus, it can be concluded that the beam Comparing the differences in shear capacity between R10 and
specimens reinforced with the straight transverse reinforcement D10 with those between R20 and D20, it appears that larger aggre-
used in this work (Fig. 3) makes no significant difference in shear gate size offsets the previously stated effect on shear strength.
behavior compared with those with normal closed stirrups.
Effect of Aggregate Size
Effect of Transverse Reinforcement Type
Generally, the shear capacity, peak deflection, and postcracking
By comparing the behavior of specimens with the same t fyt and stiffness of a beam increase with aggregate size [Figs. 8(ce)].
maximum aggregate size but different bar types (deformed and The stiffness drops after the first diagonal cracking and continues
plain round bars), the effect of transverse reinforcement type to decrease gradually with further increase in deformation.
can be investigated. The shear capacity of the R specimens (with The result that concrete contribution increases with increasing

200
120
Yield of Y25
100
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

150
Yield of Y20 Yield of Y25
80
Yield of Y20
Gauge 1 100
60 Gauge 2 Gauge 1
Gauge 3 Gauge 2
40 Gauge 4 Gauge 3
Gauge 5
50 Gauge 4
20 Gauge 6 Gauge 5
Gauge 6
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000
(a) Strain ( 10 ) -6
(b) Strain (10 ) -6

250 300
Yield of Y20
250
200
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

200
150
Yield of Y25
150
Yield of Y20
100 Yield of Y25
Gauge 1-D10C
Gauge 1-D10
100 Gauge 1
Gauge 2-D10C Gauge 2
50 Gauge 2-D10 50 Gauge 3
Gauge 4-D10C
Gauge 4-D10 Gauge 4
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
(c) Strain ( 10 )
-6 (d) Strain (10 ) -6

250 300

200 250
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

200
150
Yield of Y25 150 Yield of Y25
100 Yield of Y20 Yield of Y20
Gauge 1 100 Gauge 1
Gauge 2 Gauge 2
50 Gauge 3 50 Gauge 3
Gauge 4 Gauge 4
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
(e) Strain (10 -6) (f) Strain (10-6)

Fig. 11. Shear force versus strain in longitudinal bar: (a) N10; (b) N20; (c) D10 and D10C; (d) D20; (e) R10; (f) R20

ASCE 04017092-9 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


aggregate size is consistent with the models proposed by Vecchio to specimens with shear reinforcement when comparing D10
and Collins (1986) and Bazant and Sun (1986). With the same con- [Fig. 11(c)] with D20 [Fig. 11(d)], and R10 [Fig. 11(e)] with
crete strength, when aggregate size increases from 10 to 20 mm, R20 [Fig. 11(f)]. For D20 and R20, the longitudinal bars yield
shear capacity increases by 58.4, 13.8, and 9.2% for the N, D, before final shear failure.
and R groups, respectively, which indicates that the effect of ag-
gregate size on shear capacity decreases with the presence of trans-
verse reinforcement. Strain in Transverse Reinforcement
Comparing N10 with N20, apart from the rougher crack face of Shown in Fig. 12 is the variation in strain along the length (height)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

N20 caused by larger aggregate size, the diagonal crack of N20 is of a transverse bar at different shear forces for D10. Because of
also steeper than that of N10 toward the compression side, which space considerations, only selected transverse bars are shown. Each
results in a larger normal stress perpendicular to the crack face and is designated by its specimen ID, the distance between the trans-
hence a higher frictional resistance. Moreover, a steeper crack con- verse bar and the loading point, and the letter indicating front or
tributes a larger vertical component of shear force and a smaller back leg of the shear reinforcement at the same cross section.
component of sliding force along the crack. This explains the Taking D10-515F [Fig. 12(c)] and D10-515B [Fig. 12(d)] as exam-
widely accepted observation that the shear capacity of RC beams ples, D10 is the specimen identification, 515 specifies 515 mm
without shear reinforcement is sensitive to the inclination of the away from the loading point, and F and B represent the front and
diagonal cracks. A similar conclusion was reached by Cavagnis back leg, respectively. Figs. 13(ac) depict typical ones for D20,
et al. (2015). R10, and R20, respectively.
For D10, the strain in shear reinforcement generally increases as
the applied shear load increases. However, the rate of increase
Strain in Longitudinal Reinforcement
varies at different locations along the height of a bar and is related
The locations of the strain gauges installed on the longitudinal to loading level. Before the formation of the first diagonal crack,
tension bars are shown in Fig. 4. Depicted in Fig. 11 are the shear the strains are small and increase at a lower rate, as shown by the
load versus measured strain curves. For specimens without shear curve portion below the turning point [e.g., Fig. 12(a)]. This is be-
reinforcement, the strains in tension bars are smaller than the yield cause the shear resistance is mostly provided by V c (ASCE-ACI
strains [Figs. 11(a and b)] at all times until failure. A clear drop/ Committee 426 1973). After formation of a diagonal crack, the
change in slope can be identified from the curves of N10 and N20, strains in shear reinforcement increase much faster when shear load
indicating a sudden formation of a diagonal crack and significant increasesa clear sign of increased contribution of shear resistance
redistribution of stress in flexural reinforcement. However, for by V s. In the transition region, the slope of the curve keeps increas-
specimens with shear reinforcement, no abrupt change is observed ing, indicating a continuous shift in shear resistance from V c to V s .
[Figs. 11(cf)] when the first diagonal crack forms. The slope after the transition region tends to stabilize before the yield
After the formation of diagonal cracks in N10 and N20, the strain is reached. The slope of the curve changes again when a trans-
strain in Gauge 1 increases faster than that in other strain gauges verse bar yields or the shear resistance approaches its peak value.
with increasing load and reaches a value that is close to the strain at It can also be observed from the figures that the rate of increase
the section of maximum moment. This phenomenon is known as in strain at different heights of a transverse bar is different, because
tension shift in longitudinal bars. The extent of tension shift is re- of the bond between the concrete and the steel bar. This also de-
lated to the inclination of a diagonal crack (Park and Paulay 1975). pends on the location of the diagonal shear cracks: the farther the
Comparing N10 in Fig. 11(a) with N20 in Fig. 11(b) shows that point from a crack, the smaller the strain value. The transverse bars
the strain in the tension bars increases when aggregate size in- yield only within the span of a major diagonal crack. For the case of
creases because of the higher shear resistance of N20 and the con- D10, only two bars at Locations 330 and 515 [Fig. 7(a)] yield be-
sequent larger flexural deformation. A similar observation applies fore the peak load [Figs. 12(bd)] whereas those near the loading

250 250 250


Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)


Shear force (kN)

200 200 200

150 150 150

100 100 100

50 50 50

0 0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
(a) Strain (10-6) (b) Strain (10-6) (c) Strain (10-6)

250 250
Shear force (kN)
Shear force (kN)

200 200
150 150
100 100
50 Gauge 1 Gauge 6
50
Gauge 2 Gauge 7
0 0 Gauge 3 Gauge 8
0 1500 3000 30000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Gauge 4 Gauge 9
(d) Strain (10-6) (e) Strain (10 -6) Gauge 5 Yield strain

Fig. 12. Shear force versus strain in transverse bar for D10: (a) D10-145F; (b) D10-330F; (c) D10-515F; (d) D10-515B; (e) D10-700B

ASCE 04017092-10 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


300 250 300

Shear force (kN)


Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)


250 200 250
200 200
150
150 150
100
100 100
50 50 50
0 0 0
0 1000 2000 4000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 25000 0 800 1600 2400 30000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Strain (10-6) (b) Strain (10-6) (c) Strain (10-6)

Fig. 13. Typical strain distributions in transverse bar for D20, R10, and R20 (legend refers to Fig. 12): (a) D20-330F; (b) R10-450F; (c) R20-450F

point and support do not yield [Figs. 12(a and e)]. In this case, the Similar observations can be made with respect to R10 and R20,
calculation of V s using yield strain for all transverse reinforcement as shown in Figs. 13(b and c), respectively. Compared with spec-
intersecting a critical diagonal crack would be unconservative. imens D10 and D20, the difference between the strains measured at
Also, the location where the largest strain occurs is not always at different points along the height of a transverse bar is relatively
the midheight of a shear bar, which indicates that measuring the small for specimens R10 and R20. Moreover, the strains in the
strain of shear reinforcement only at midheight is inappropriate transverse bars of R10 are more sensitive to the first diagonal crack
in shear tests. than those of D10. These two phenomena can be explained by the
It is also observed that the strain in the front leg may not nec- relatively weaker bond between the concrete and the plain steel
essarily be the same as that in the back leg [e.g., Figs. 12(c and d)], bars.
especially for bars located in the region with significant cracks. In- The strain distributions along each transverse bar at selected
terestingly, snap-back of strains [Fig. 12(c)] occurs in some bars loading levels for D10 are shown in Fig. 14. Typical distributions
near the peak load. This is a sign of unloading in some transverse for D20, R10, and R20 are depicted in Figs. 15(ac), respectively.
bars caused by intensive local concrete damage and subsequent Generally, the strains show a rapid increase as the load approaches
transfer of stress to the adjacent region. The significant unloading the peak shear resistance V m . Except for the bars close to the
in D10-515F [Fig. 12(c)] causes significantly larger strains in loading point and support, all yield when the load reaches approx-
D10-515B [Fig. 12(d)], showing the redistribution of stress from imately 0.95V. Although the shear reinforcement ratio of speci-
the front side to the back side at the same cross section. Similar mens with plain bars is larger than that of specimens with
snap-back phenomena were observed in the tests conducted by deformed bars, the average strain of the former at peak load is much
Qin et al. (2015) and Lee et al. (2015). larger than that of the latter. This is simply because the plain bars
Specimen D20 was slightly precracked [Fig. 7(a)]; its transverse have a lower yield strength and longer yield plateau (Fig. 5) com-
bars were stressed much earlier than those of D10 [Fig. 13(a)]. The pared with the deformed bars. It can also be clearly seen from these
transition regions are also less apparent. Fig. 13(a) shows a continu- figures that yielding generally occurs in parts of a bar rather than in
ous strain increase without a sudden change in stress transfer. This the whole length. In fact, there is no moment at which a bar yields
is an indication that precracking occurred in this region and trans- fully throughout its length. The strain at the position intersecting a
verse reinforcement took significant load from the very beginning. diagonal shear crack tends to be larger. It is also important that the
Even though the strain of the transverse bars in D20 is less than that strain distributions in the front and back legs of the transverse
in D10, the shear capacity of the former is 13.8% larger than that of reinforcement are not the same in most cases. Fig. 16 shows the
the latter. This must have been caused by a higher V c in D20. strains of two legs for D10 at the onset of shear strength. The bars

e8 e9 e9
Strain gauges

Strain gauges
Strain gauges

ug ug 8 ug 8
Ga ge 7 Ga ge Ga ge
u 7 u 7
u
Ga ge 6 Ga ge Ga ge
u 6 u 6
u Ga ge Ga ge
Ga ge 5 u 5 u 5
u Ga ge Ga ge
Ga ge 4 u 4 u 4
a u Ga ge Ga ge
G ge 3 u 3 u
Ga ge
3
a u Ga ge
G ge 2 u 2
Ga ge
u 2
Ga ge
u u 1 u 1
Ga ge 1 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Ga ge Ga ge
u u 0 1000 2000 3000 u 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Ga Ga Ga
(a) Strain (10-6) (b) Strain (10 -6) (c) Strain (10-6)

e9
Strain gauges

e9
Strain gauges

ug 8 ug
Ga ge Ga g e 8
u 7 u
Ga ge Ga g e 7
u 6 u
Ga ge Ga g e 6
u 5 u
Ga ge Ga g e 5
u 4 u
Ga ge Ga g e 4
u 3 u 0.25 V
Ga ge Ga g e 3
u 2 u
Ga ge Ga ge 2 0.5 V 1V
u 1 u
Ga ge 0 1000 2000 3000 25000 Ga ge 10 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0.75 V Vf
u u
Ga Ga
(d) Strain (10-6) (e) Strain (10-6) 0.95 V Yield strain

Fig. 14. Strain distribution along transverse bars for D10: (a) D10-145F; (b) D10-330F; (c) D10-515F; (d) D10-515B; (e) D10-700B

ASCE 04017092-11 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


e9
ug 8 e8 e8
Ga ge ug 7 ug 7
Ga ge Ga ge

Strain gauges
Strain gauges

Strain gauges
u 7
Ga ge u 6 u 6
u 6 Ga ge Ga ge
Ga ge u 5 u 5
u 5 Ga ge Ga ge
Ga ge u 4 u 4
u 4 Ga ge Ga ge
Ga ge u 3 u 3
u 3 Ga ge Ga ge
Ga ge u 2 u 2
u 2 Ga g Ga g
Ga ge u 1 u 1
u 1 Ga ge Ga ge
Ga ge 0 u u 0
u 1000 2000 3000 4000 Ga 0 800 1600 2400 3200 30000 Ga 800 1600 2400 25000
Ga
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) Strain (10 )-6


(b) Strain (10 )
-6
(c) Strain (10-6)

Fig. 15. Typical strain distribution along transverse bars for D20, R10, and R20 (legend refers to Fig. 14): (a) D20-330F; (b) R10-575B;
(c) R20-450B

1 4 5 3 3 0 5 1 5 7 0 0 of the shear force and the shear reinforcement is subjected to


D 1 0 only a small part of the load. This situation changes when a
diagonal shear crack occurs where V c reaches its maximum
4000 value and a turning point in the V s curve occurs. After this
Strain at crack ( 106)

Front leg of stirrup


Back leg of stirrup point, V c slightly reduces and V s increases quickly. By compar-
3000 ing the peak point of V c in Fig. 17(a) with that in Fig. 17(b), it
Yield strain of stirrup
2000 can be seen that Crack 1 and Crack 2 occur at different times.
After a small postpeak reduction, V c stabilizes and reaches a
1000 yield plateau at a deflection of approximately 6 mm, where a
further increase in shear resistance is solely contributed by shear
0 reinforcement. The maximum shear resistance V m is reached at a
145 330 515 700
Location of transverse bar (mm) displacement of approximately 14 mm, where V c begins to de-
cline at a faster rate until a final and sudden shear failure occurs
Fig. 16. Peak strain in transverse bars at crack position for D10 at the end of the curve. Similar observations can be made for
R10 from Figs. 17(c and d).
The variations in V s , V c , and V for D20 are shown in
Figs. 17(e and f), and those for R20 are shown in Fig. 17(g).
at Locations 515 and 700 mm from the loading point intersect the One observation is that, because of the existence of precracks in
critical diagonal crack, and the strains in the figure give the strain these specimens, the transverse bars are mobilized to take shear
value at the crack position. The strains for Locations 145 and force much earlier compared with D10 and R10. Another observa-
330 mm are at the bottom of the transverse bars where the diagonal tion is that V s is slightly reduced after its peak with further increase
crack passes by. It can be clearly seen that the strains in the two legs in beam displacement. This is caused by the snap-back of strain
are different and that not all bars intersecting the diagonal crack [Fig. 13(a)] in shear reinforcement because of significant local
yield at onset of shear strength. damage to the concrete, which deteriorates the bond and support
The unequal strains in the front and back legs of the transverse condition of the transverse bars. When reduction in V s occurs,
bars reflect the three-dimensional (3D) nature of cracking, which V c is able to increase further, indicating internal redistribution
indicates that it is probably incorrect to assume a correct crack path of stress and change in load path in the concrete. The third obser-
and determine V s by installing a small number of strain gauges vation is that the V c of specimens with 20-mm maximum aggregate
along the crack path. Figs. 14 and 15 reflect actual bond conditions size is significantly larger than that of the specimens with 10-mm
and cracking patterns and is useful for calibration of numerical maximum aggregate size. This is clear evidence that aggregate size
models. is an important factor that affects V c .
A common observation is that V c is not a constant during beam
Variation in V s and V c deformation and the maximum values of V s and V c occur at differ-
ent moments for all the four specimensV c reaches its peak point
Based on the profile of an observed diagonal shear crack and the much earlier than V s for specimens without pre-cracks. Therefore,
strain of a transverse bar at the intersecting point with the diagonal strictly speaking, the superposition of the maximum values of V s
crack, V si can be determined. The value of V s is obtained from the and V c does not give the actual shear strength V m . However, based
summation of V si [Eq. (1)]. The stress is determined from the on the results for the particular beams tested in this work, the yield
stress-strain curves obtained from rebar tensile tests (Fig. 5). With plateau of V c is relatively long. Therefore, the superposition rule
V s known, V c is calculated by Eq. (1). may not cause significant error in shear strength from a design point
It can be seen from Fig. 7 that there is more than one diagonal of view for beams with a=d of approximately 2.6.
shear crack for most cases. In these cases, the values of V, V s , and
V c are determined for different diagonal cracks. The calculated
Evaluation of Existing Models
results are shown in Fig. 17. The identification of cracks is given
in Fig. 7. When more than two diagonal cracks exist in a specimen, Values of V s and V c calculated from ACI 318-14 and EC2-92 are
only two are selected in the following study. shown in Fig. 17. Similar to most design codes, both of these stan-
The variations in V, V s , and V c versus beam deflection for D10 dards assume V c to be constant. A more detailed comparison of V s
at Crack 1 and Crack 2 are depicted in Figs. 17(a and b), respec- and V c , including predictions in the models in JSCE-02 (JSCE
tively. The variations in the three shear components at Cracks 1 and 2002) and Zsutty (1968), is given in Table 3. Compared with
2 are similar. At the beginning of loading, the concrete takes most the test results, all the predicted values are conservative in terms

ASCE 04017092-12 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


250 250
Vm Vm
V 200 V
200

Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)


150 Vs 150 Vs

100 100

50 50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Vc
Vc
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
(a) Deflection of beam (mm) (b) Deflection of beam (mm)
300 300

250 Vm 250 Vm
V V
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)


200 200
Vs Vs
150 150

100 100

50 50
Vc Vc
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
(c) Deflection of beam (mm) (d) Deflection of beam (mm)

300 300
V Vm Vm
250 250 V
Shear force (kN)

Shear force (kN)

200 200 Vs

150 Vc
150

100 100

50 50
Vc
Vs
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
(e) Deflection of beam (mm) (f) Deflection of beam (mm)

300
Vm
250 V
Shear force (kN)

200 Vs
150
Vs - CEN (1992)
100
Vc - CEN (1992)
50 Vs - ACI (2014)
Vc
0 Vc - ACI (2014)
0 10 20 30 40 50
(g) Deflection of beam (mm) Vc - Bazant and Kim (1984)

Fig. 17. Variation in V s and V c against deflection: (a) D10 Crack 1; (b) D10 Crack 2; (c) R10 Crack 1; (d) R10 Crack 2; (e) D20 Crack 1; (f) D20
Crack 2; (g) R20 Crack 1

p p r
of V s and those in ACI 318-14 and Zsutty (1968) are closer to the 83
v q f c0 3000 psi; in: 3
test results. With regard to V c , ACI 318-14 and EC2-92 seem to be
1 25d d a=d5
more conservative than Zsutty (1968) and JSCE-02. However, a

Zsuttys model turns out to be unconservative for D10 and R10.


It can also be seen from Table 3 that a larger aggregate size gives where v = unit shear strength given by V c =bd in which b and
a larger value of V c , suggesting that aggregate size is a significant d = breadth and effective depth of beam, respectively; and da =
factor in V c . flexural tension reinforcement ratio and maximum aggregate size,
Few existing models of V c consider the effect of aggregate size. respectively; and a = length of shear span.
Bazant and Kim (1984) proposed the following equation for pre- The results calculated from Eq. (3) are also shown in Fig. 17.
diction of V c including the size effect: Compared with ACI 318-14 and EC2-92, the predictions from

ASCE 04017092-13 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


Table 3. Comparison of V s and V c
Test results ACI 318-14 EC2-92 Zsutty (1968) JSCE-02
Beam V s (kN) V c (kN) V s (kN) V c (kN) V s (kN) V c (kN) V s (kN) V c (kN) V s (kN) V c (kN)
D10 136.9 81.3 122.3 78.5 110.1 72.4 122.3 106.7 106.4 85.9
D20 131.6 116.4 122.3 77.15 110.1 70.5 122.3 105.3 106.4 84.7
R10 143.1 92.5 122.3 75.55 110.1 68.2 122.3 103.5 106.4 83.3
R20 145.3 113.4 122.3 74.2 110.1 66.3 122.3 102.1 106.4 82.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 18. Existing V c models related to member deformation: (a) Fernndez Ruiz and Muttoni (2009); (b) Priestley et al. (1994)

Eq. (3) better match the test results obtained from this work in terms resistance from shear reinforcement V s can be determined at any
of V c . time during a test. The contribution of concrete V c is then obtained
Few existing models relate V c to member deformation. Based by subtracting V s from the measured total shear force V. To
on the test results for members without shear reinforcement avoid a reduction in the bond strength by strain gauges on the
from Muttoni and Fernndez Ruiz (2008), Fernndez et al. surface of the rebar, strain gauges are installed inside the shear
(2009) proposed a model that predicts a large reduction in V c with reinforcement.
an increase in member rotation [Fig. 18(a)]. The model proposed by Seven RC beam tests were conducted with the above method to
Priestley et al. (1994) is shown in Fig. 18(b), which predicts a evaluate its effectiveness. The following conclusions are drawn
reduction in V c of more than 60% from the ductility ratio of 2 from this work:
to 4. In Fig. 17, however, the reduction in V c is small along a rel- The method can identify the variation in V c and V s continuously
atively longer plateau. Therefore, the test results for the particular throughout a beam test;
beams studied in this work do not support the predictions of these When deformation increases, both V c and V s increase; most of
models. the shear resistance is contributed by V c before the occurrence
However, it should be noted that the degradation of V c for RC of the first diagonal crack; after that, V s increases faster while
members under seismic loading can be more significant than that the increase in V c slows but continues until a major diagonal
under static load. Secondly, V c is related to a=d. For members with shear crack forms where V c reaches its peak value; further de-
a smaller a=d, V c has a larger contribution from the arch mecha- formation causes a small drop in V c and a subsequent plateau
nism, which is less sensitive to cracking or displacement. The value where its value stabilizes until final failure; from the peak point
of a=d is 2.6 in this work, which cannot exclude the arch action. For of V c to final failure, additional shear resistance is taken up
these reasons, the reduction in V c in this work could be smaller than by V s ;
that under seismic loading or under flexural shear failure. Never- Maximum V s and V c occur at different times; strictly speaking,
theless, the previous analyses show that more investigations are the superposition rule of V s and V c for V is not applicable; how-
needed to improve the existing models to cover more general ever, the V c yield plateau for the beams tested in this work is
cases. long and the superposition rule does not cause significant error
from an engineering design point of view for these particular
cases; nevertheless V c can drop significantly in the case of more
Conclusions slender beams, where a reduction factor of V c may be required
for calculation using its peak value;
An experimental method that is able to separately evaluate the The test results show that the existing method that measures the
contributions of concrete V c and shear reinforcement V s to total strain of shear reinforcement at midheight or along a preas-
shear resistance in beam tests is introduced in this paper. This is sumed crack path cannot accurately identify V s from testing;
achieved by measuring the strain of all shear reinforcement bars apart from bond disturbance and the uncertainty in crack loca-
along the full depth without disturbing the bond, so that the stress tion, the crack path is different at the two sides of a beam, which
of all shear reinforcement at all positions and for any load is causes different strains in the front and back legs of the shear
known. Based on the observed exact path of a critical diagonal reinforcement;
crack, the stress of a transverse bar at the location intersecting Not all shear reinforcement that intersects a critical diagonal
the critical diagonal crack can be identified and therefore the shear crack yields at the onset of peak shear resistance;

ASCE 04017092-14 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


The variation in V c with respect to member deformation pre- esistenti in c.a. assoggettate a carichi concentrate]. Industria Italiana
dicted by existing models does not match the test results of this del Cemento, 76(818), 212235.
work; Foraboschi, P. (2012a). Predictive multiscale model of delayed debonding
Precracking causes earlier mobilization of V s in the beginning for concrete members with adhesively bonded external reinforcement.
Appl. Int. J., 3(4), 307329.
of loading; it does not have other significant effects on the shear
Foraboschi, P. (2012b). Shear strength computation of reinforced concrete
behavior of a beam after initial cracking; beams strengthened with composite materials. Appl. Int. J., 3(3),
Aggregate size significantly affects V c ; when aggregate size in- 227252.
creases, the shear strength and corresponding beam deformation Foraboschi, P. (2015). Analytical model to predict the lifetime of concrete
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

along with the postcracking stiffness of V c increase; and members externally reinforced with FRP. Theor. Appl. Fract. Mech.,
The values of V s and V c are similar at different diagonal cracks 75(1), 137145.
at the same moment; the critical diagonal crack cannot be dis- Hamza, A. M., and Naaman, A. E. (1996). Bond characteristics of
tinguished from other diagonal cracks during testing before final deformed reinforcing steel bars embedded in SIFCON. ACI Mater. J.,
failure occurs. 93(6), 578588.
Jiang, C., Wu, Y. F., and Wu, G. (2014). Plastic hinge length of FRP-
confined square RC columns. J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC
Acknowledgments .1943-5614.0000463, 04014003.
JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers). (2002). Standard specification
The work described in this paper was fully supported by a grant for concrete structures. JSCE-02, Tokyo.
from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Kani, G. N. J. (1964). The riddle of shear failure and its solution. ACI J.
No. 51378449). Undergraduate students Chan Hong Lam, Kwok Proc., 61(4), 441467.
Ka Chun, and Ho Yuen Ng took part in the experimental tests as Laskar, A., Hsu, T. T., and Mo, Y. L. (2010). Shear strengths of prestressed
concrete beamsPart 1: Experiments and shear design equations.
part of their final-year projects. Their significant contributions to
ACI Struct. J., 107(03), 330339.
the work are acknowledged. Lee, J. Y., and Kim, U. Y. (2008). Effect of longitudinal tensile reinforce-
ment ratio and shear span-depth ratio on minimum shear reinforcement
in beams. ACI Struct. J., 105(2), 134144.
References Lee, J. Y., Lee, D. H., Lee, J. E., and Choi, S. H. (2015). Shear behavior
and diagonal crack width for RC beams with high strength shear
AASHTO. (2009). AASHTO-LRFD bridge design guide specifications
reinforcement. ACI Struct. J., 112(3), 323333.
for GFRP-reinforced concrete bridge decks and traffic railings.
Li, W., and Leung, C. K. (2015). Shear span-depth ratio effect on behavior
Washington, DC.
of RC beam shear strengthened with full-wrapping FRP strip. J. Com-
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2014). Building code requirements
pos. Constr, 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000627, 04015067.
for structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318-14, Farmington
Hills, MI. Munikrishna, A., Hosny, A., Rizkalla, S., and Zia, P. (2011). Behavior of
ACI-ASCE Committee 326. (1962). Shear and diagonal tension. ACI J. concrete beams reinforced with ASTM A1035 grade 100 stirrups under
Proc., 59(1), 277334. shear. ACI Struct. J., 108(1), 3441.
ACI Committee 445. (1998). Recent approaches to shear design of Muttoni, A., and Fernndez Ruiz, M. (2008). Shear strength of members
structural concrete (ACI 445R-99). J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE) without transverse reinforcement as function of critical shear crack
0733-9445(1998)124:12(1375), 13751417. width. ACI Struct. J., 105(2), 163172.
Arezoumandi, M., Volz, J. S., Ortega, C. A., and Myers, J. J. (2014). Shear Pang, X. B. D., and Hsu, T. T. C. (1996). Fixed-angle softened-truss model
behavior of high-volume fly ash concrete versus conventional concrete: for reinforced concrete. ACI Struct. J., 93(2), 197207.
Experimental study. J. Struct. Eng., 141(3), B4014006. Park, R., and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced concrete structures, Wiley,
ASCE-ACI Committee 426. (1973). The shear strength of reinforced Hoboken, NJ.
concrete members. J. Struct. Div., 99(6), 10911187. Priestley, M. J. N., Verma, R., and Xiao, Y. (1994). Seismic shear strength
Bazant, Z. P., and Kim, J. K. (1984). Size effect in shear failure of of reinforced concrete columns. J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733
longitudinally reinforced beams. ACI J. Proc., 81(5), 456468. -9445(1994)120:8(2310), 23102329.
Bazant, Z. P., and Sun, H. H. (1986). Size effect in diagonally shear fail- Qin, S., Dirar, S., Yang, J., Chan, A. H., and Elshafie, M. (2015). CFRP
ure: Influence of aggregate size and stirrups. ACI Mater. J., 84(4), shear strengthening of reinforced-concrete T-beams with corroded shear
259272. links. J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000548,
Birrcher, D., Tuchscherer, R., Huizinga, M., Bayrak, O., Wood, S. L., and 04014081.
Jirsa, J. O. (2009). Strength and serviceability design of reinforced Regan, P. E., and Reid, I. K. (2004). Shear strength of RC beams with
concrete deep beams. Research Rep. 5253-1, Centre for Transportation defective stirrup anchorages. Mag. Concr. Res., 56(3), 159166.
Research, Univ. of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. Ritter, W. (1899). Die bauweise hennebique. Schweizerische Bauzei-tung,
Cavagnis, F., Ruiz, M. F., and Muttoni, A. (2015). Shear failures in re- 33(7), 5961.
inforced concrete members without transverse reinforcement: An analy- Sherwood, E. G., Lubell, A. S., Bentz, E. C., and Collins, M. P. (2006).
sis of the critical shear crack development on the basis of test results. One-way shear strength of thick slabs and wide beams. ACI Struct.
Eng. Struct., 103, 157173. J., 103(6), 794802.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (1992). Design of Tompos, E. J., and Frosch, R. J. (2002). Influence of beam size, longitu-
concrete structuresPart 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. dinal reinforcement, and stirrup effectiveness on concrete shear
EC2, Brussels, Belgium. strength. ACI Struct. J., 99(5), 559567.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2004). Design of Varney, J. C., Brown, M. D., Bayrak, O., and Poston, R. W. (2011). Effect
concrete structuresPart 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings. of stirrup anchorage on shear strength of reinforced concrete beams.
EC2, Brussels, Belgium. ACI Struct. J., 108(4), 469478.
CSA (Canadian Standards Association). (2004). Design of concrete Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P. (1986). The modified compression field
structures. CSA A23.3-04, Mississauga, ON, Canada. theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J. Proc.,
Fernndez Ruiz, M., and Muttoni, A. (2009). Application of the critical 83(2), 219231.
shear crack theory to punching of reinforced concrete slabs with trans- Viawathanatepa, S., Popov, E. P., and Bertero, V. V. (1979). Effects of
verse reinforcement. ACI Struct. J., 106(4), 485494. generalized loadings on bond of reinforcing bars embedded in confined
Foraboschi, P. (2006). Shear strengthening of existing reinforced concrete concrete blocks. Rep. No. UCB/EERC-79/22, Earthquake Engineering
beams subjected to concentrated forces [Rinforzo a taglio di travi Research Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, CA.

ASCE 04017092-15 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1


Wu, Y. F., Griffith, M. C., and Oehlers, D. J. (2003). Improving the strength confinement combined with transverse short glass FRP bars in bored
and ductility of rectangular reinforced concrete columns through holes. J. Compos. Constr., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0268(2008)12:1(53),
composite partial interaction: Tests. J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE) 5360.
0733-9445(2003)129:9(1183), 11831190. Zhang, T., Visintin, P., and Oehlers, D. J. (2015). Shear strength of RC
Wu, Y. F., He, L., and Bank, L. C. (2015). Bond-test protocol for plate- beams with steel stirrups. J. Struct. Eng., 142(2), 10.1061/(ASCE)ST
to-concrete interface involving all mechanisms. J. Compos. Constr., .1943-541X.0001404, 04015135.
10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000581, 04015022. Zhao, X. M. (2012). Investigation of plastic hinges in reinforced concrete
Wu, Y. F., and Jiang, C. (2013a). Quantification of bond-slip relationship (RC) structures by finite element method and experimental study.
for externally bonded FRP-to-concrete joints. J. Compos. Constr., Ph.D. thesis, City Univ. of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by PUC/RJ - Pontificia Universidade Catolica Do Rio De Janeiro on 05/22/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000375, 673686. Zhao, X. M., Wu, Y. F., and Leung, A. Y. T. (2012). Analyses of plastic
Wu, Y. F., and Jiang, J. F. (2013b). Effective strain of FRP for con- hinge regions in reinforced concrete beams under monotonic loading.
fined circular concrete columns. Compos. Struct., 95, 479491. Eng. Struct., 34, 466482.
Wu, Y. F., Liu, T., and Wang, L. M. (2008). Experimental investigation on Zsutty, T. C. (1968). Beam shear strength prediction by analysis of
seismic retrofitting of square RC columns by carbon FRP sheet existing data. ACI J. Proc., 65(11), 943951.

ASCE 04017092-16 J. Struct. Eng.

J. Struct. Eng., 2017, 143(9): -1--1

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi