Alternate Transverse Reinforcement In Beams Abstract Transverse reinforcement is more important in beams as shear failure is catastrophic and sudden as compared to flexural failure. IS 456 suggests only vertical stirrups, inelined stirrups, and bent-up bars in conjunction with vertical stirrups. Moreover, the detailing of stirups is not given much importance and is often the cause of failure during earthquakes. Hence all possible transverse reinforcements and their detailing are discussed briefly inthis paper. Introduction ‘Abeam may be subjected to shear, axial thrust, tension or torsion, in addition to the predominant flexure. According to traditional design philosophy, bending moment and shear force are treated separately, even though they co- exist, The shear behaviour of reinforced beams has been researched for more than a century and the foundations of knowledge on shear were provided by March in 1909. The Indian concrete code, IS 456:2000, has adopted the Ritter. Mérsch 45° truss model for shear design, and based on that the shear strength of concrete is calculated, The shear strength as perthis code isfoundto be very conservative, compared to the experimental results, The main objective of RC designer is to produce ductile behaviour in members, such that ample warning is provided before failure. Hoverer shear failure is more sudden and catastrophic than flexural failure. RC beams. are often provided with sufficient shear reinforcement, such that beams fallin ductile flexural mode. As per the latest research, transverse shear reinforcement may be provided in different ways, viz. vertical stirrups, inclined stirrups, bent-up bars, welded Wire mesh, spirals, headed studs, steel fibres, etc Several design methods and detailing rules are Dr. N. Subramanian prescribed in the code will result in a strength that is governed by bending failure rather than shear failure, if the member is overloaded. But IS 456 suggests only vertical stirrups, inclined stirrups, and bentup bars in conjunction with vertical stirups. All possible transverse reinforcements and their detailingare discussed briefiyin this paper. Types of Transverse reinforcements According to the New Zealand code, shear or web reinforcement, called stirrups, links or studs may be provided to resist shear, in several diferent ways such as. (NZS 3101.06}: + Stiups perpendicular to the longitudinal flexural (tension) reinforcement of the member- normally vertical Fig. 1(a) and ig. 2] + Inclined stirrups making an angle of 45° or more with the longitudinal flexural reinforcement of the member (Fig. 1(b)) + Bent-up longitudinal reinforcement, making an angle of 30 degree or more with the longitudinal flexural reinforcement [Fig.1(c)] + Welded wire mesh (they should not be used in potential plastic hinge locations) [Fig 1(d)], used in small, lightly loaded members with thin webs and in ‘some precast beams (Lin and Perng, 1998). + Spirals [Fig. 1(€)] + Combination of stirrups and bent up longitudinal reinforcement Fig. 1(f)] + Mechanically anchored bars (headed studs) with end bearing plates/head having an area of at least 10 times the eross-sectionalarea of bars (Fig. 2) + Diagonally reinforced members (as in diagonally reinforced couplingbeams) + Steel fibres in potential plastic hinge locations of members. However IS 456 allows the use of vertical stirrups, bend- Upbars along with stirrups, and inclined stirrups only. TO! Journal | Osteber- December 2012 7— ———__ ana 10 |e i iit — - ‘ete srups 6 weed ir frie aa 121 45° s = a — wee — 9 tte cae Fig, 1 Types and arrangement of stirups The inclusion of web reinforcement such as stirrups does not fundamentally change the previously described ‘mechanism of shear resistance. The presence of stirrups contributes to the strength of shear mechanisms in the following ways (Parkand Paulay 1975): 41. They carry partof theshear 2. They improve the contribution ofthe dowel action. The stirrup can effectively support longitudinal barthatis, boing crossed by a flexural shear crack clase to a stirrup. 3. They limit the opening of diagonal cracks within the elastic range, thus enhancing and aiding the shear transterby aggregate interiock 4. When stirrups. are closely spaced, they provide confinement to the core conerete, thus increasing the compression strength and failure strain of concrete, which will be helpful in locations affected by arch action 5. They prevent the breakdown of bond when splitting cracks develop in anchorage zones because of dowel ‘and anchorage forces. 6. The strength of the ‘concrete tooth’ between two adjacent shear cracks of the beam and located below the neutral axis is important for developing shear strength. Each of these small blocks act as a cantilever with its base at the compression zone. The Fig. 2 Headed shear stud reinforcement conforming to ASTM A3044/A1044M (Source: AC| 421.1 R-08. Reprinted with permission from the American Concrete Institute). Fig. 3 Performance of different types of web reinforcement (Source: Leonhardt 2964), resistance of the tooth is a function of flexural resistance, dowel effects and interface forces. The stirrups suppress flexural tensile stresses in the cantilever blocks. Leonhardt and Walther (1964) found that compared to ‘other types of shear/web reinforcement, inclined stirrups yield the best performance in terms of cracking/crack width and ultimate capacity for the same area of stee! followed by vertical stirrups and bent-up bars (see Fig. 3) Vertical stirrups The transverse reinforcement in the form of shear stirrups will be usually vertical and taken around the outermost tension and compression longitudinal reinforcement along the faces of the beam, as shown in Fig. 4. In beams and |- beams they should pass around longitudinal bars located close to the outer face of the ‘web. The mosteommon typesare U shaped; butitean be inthe form of single vertical prong or in the shape of UU ‘as shown in Fig. 4 (a) to (e). Multiple stirrups in the shape ‘8s shown in Fig. 4(e) may prevent splitting inthe plane of the longitudinal bars. Hence they are more desirable for vide beams than the arrangement shown in Fig. (4). The stirtup arrangements shown in Fig, 4(a) to (e) are not ‘closed at the top and hence their placement at site is relatively easy compared to the closed stirrups. However they should be used in beams with negligible torsional moment, and are not recommended in seismic resistant drsign. Closed stirrups, which are suitable for beams with significant torsion, are shovin in Fig. 4 (f) to (i). The type shown in Fig. 4 (f) are frequently adopted in India: the vertical hoop isa closed stirrup having 135° hook with 10 diameter extension (but not greater than 75 mm) at each ‘end that is embedded in the confined core [see Fig. 4 (f) land ()). it can also be made of two pieces of ICI Journal |Oetober- Dezember 2012Fig. 4 Types of vertical stirups reinforcementas shown in Fig. 4(g) with a U-stirrup having, 1350 hook and 10 diameter extension (but not greater than 75mm) ateach end, embedded in concrete core and across-tie, Across tle isa bar having 135" hook with a 10, diameter extension (but not greater than 75 mm) at each end, Note that the draft IS 13920 code suggests a 6 diameter extension, which is not greater than 65 mm. tis also possible to have the cross tie with a 135° hook atone ‘endand 90° hook at the other end for easy fabrication, as, shown in Fig. 4(h) and (k). The hooks engage peripheral longitudinal bars. Consecutive crossties engaging the same longitudinal bars should have their 90° hooks at ‘opposite sides of the flexural member (ie. the crossties should be alternated). If the longitudinal reinforcement bars secured by crassties are confined by a slab on only ‘one side of the beam, the 90° hooks of the crossties can be placed on that side [see Fig, 4(h)]. In deep members (especially those with gradually varying depths) it may be convenient to use lap-spliced stirrups (with a lap length ‘equal to 1.3 times the development length},as shown in Fig. 4(). However, this arrangement should not be adopted in seismic zones. Also longitudinal bars are to be provided in the web as recommended by IS : 456 - 2000 The legs of stirrups should not be too wide apart in order to avoid vertical cracks through the web (see Fig. 5). The corer longitudinal bars being rigid attract compression forces to flow towards them, while the other inner bars are relatively flexible. If the beam width is greater than 400 mm (> 500 mm if the beam is deeper than 1.0m) itis desirable to provide four-legged stirrups instead of the usual two legged stirrups. This ensures uniform distribution of compression stresses, and reduces the Fig 5 Flow of forces in beams with stirups (Leonhardt and Walther 1964) a & [Altwme step [Bont Sirap Fig. 6 Vertical stirrups-Note the two different akemate arrangements of providing inner stirups possibility of web splitting, When multilegged stirrups are Used, especially in shallow beams, two different arrangements as shown in Fig. 6 are feasible. IS 13920 ‘suggests that the minimum diameter of bars forming a hoops should be 6mm for beams having clear span less. than 5m, and 8mm ifthe clearspan exceeds 5m. Bars called hangers (usually having the same or slightly feater diameter than the stirrups) are placed in the compression side of the beams to support the stirrups, as showin in Fig, 4 to 6. The stirrups are placed around the tensile longitudinal bars and to meet anchorage requirements, hooked around the hangers with 90° or 135° hooks, and placed with 6 to 10 diameter extensions, as shown in Fig. 40) and (k) (Note thata 90" bend may not ensure satisfactory performance at ultimate loads, since concrete cover may spall offin compression region due to high tensile forcesin the stirrups, which tres to straighten the bend). Bending of the stirrups around the hangers reduces the bearing stresses under the hooks. If the bearingstresses are too high, the concrete may crush and thestirrupswilltearout. Bent-up bars ‘The performance of bent-up bars in shear is illustrated in Fig. 7,As seen in this figure, large stresses concentrate in the region of such bars, leading to splitting of concrete when spaced far apart or when placed asymmetrically with reference to the vertical axis of cross-section. TOI Journal | Ostober- December 20129Fig. 7 Performance of bent up bars in shear (Source: Leonharat and Mannig 1977) Several disadvantages of bent up bars include (a). They are widely spaced, and are few in number. Due to this @ crack may not be intercepted by more than ‘one bar, thus resulting in wider cracks than those in beams with stirrups. (b) When some of the bars ata section are bent-up, the remaining flexural bars are subjected to higher stresses, as also possible shifting up of neutral axis resultingin wider flexural cracks. (c} Concrete at the bends may be subjected to splitting forces, resulting n possible web cracking, (a). They do notconfine the conerete inthe shear region. (@) They are less efficient in tying the compression flange and web together. Due to the above and also due to the fact that lent up bars do not contribute to reversal of shear force (as may occur uring earthquakes), |S 456 ciscourages the use of bent- up bars only (SP:24-1983) However, clause 40.4 of IS 456 recommends bent up bars and stirrups together, by specifying that the design capacity of bentup bars should not exceed half that of total shear reinforcement. Most designers prefer to design vertical stirups to take up all the shear requirements, and bentup bars, if any, to provide additional safety against diagonal tension failure. Inclined stirrups Inclined stirrups are similar to vertical stirrups, except that they are placed at an angle of about 45° to the longitudinal axis of the beam. Their behaviours similar to the bentup bars. However, they have the following advantages over bent up bars: (a) They can be closely spaced, and hence the cracks may be intercepted by more than one bat, resulting in less wider cracks than those in beams with bent- up bars. 1 2) «kk oC ‘| PAL A o | Fig. 8 Spirals Source: Jaafar, 2007) (0) They confine the concrete inthe shear region. (6) They as efficient as vertical stirrups in tying the ‘compression flange and web together. Moreover, as they are nearly perpendicular to the cracks, they are more efficient than all other shear reinforcement (see Fig. 3). However they are difficult to fabricate and construct. Further, when there is reversal of shear force (due to earthquakes), they may be inefficient. Note that experimental investigations on inclined stirups is very limited compared to the extensive investigations on vertical stirrups (Leonhardt and Walther 1964; Bach etal. 1980) Spirals The increase in strength of core concrete and ductility due to confinement reinforcement in the form of helical reinforcement in RC columns is well known, However thelr effect in RC beams has not been studied extensively. Helical reinforcement is bound to increase ductility in high-strength reinforced concrete beams. If the correct pitch is utilized for effective confinement, helical reinforcement will provide an economical solution for enhancing the strength of flexural members (Hadi and ‘Schmidt 2003). Several ways of providing spirals such as spirals in tensile zone, spirals in compression zone, double spirals and interlocking spirals have been studied by Jaffar 2007, as shown in Fig. 8. It was found that Interlocking spirals, and double spirals provide better performance under cyclic loading due to confinement ‘action ané shear contribution, Cracks were found to be terminated by hoops and stopped from spreading. As shear strength of concrete is provided mainly by the Uneracked compression zone, it may be sufficient to confine the compression zone alone, Design codes have not yet provided equations for the design of spirals. Headed Studs Headed studs are increasingly used to replace conventional stirrups. Headed studs are smooth or deformed bars provided with forged or welded heads for anchorage at one or both the ends, as shown in Fig. 2 and 9. Several types and configurations of shear studs have 10 161 Journal [October-December 2012,Tablet Detals of Shearall® system sem ° Fig. 9 Headed stud with deformed stem and heads at both ends been reported in the literature, The two types that are common are: (a) single-headed studs welded to a continuous base ‘ail; and (b) double-headed studs crimped into a steel channel (see Fig, 2). The base rail is. used to position the studs at the required spacing, which is determined by readymade software or calculation. This shear stud rail system is sometimes referred as SSR on drawings. Several manufacturers produce readymade patented systems and the details of shearail® system by BRC Ltd., U.K. are given in Table 1. To be fully effective, the size of the heads should be capable of developing the specified yield strength of the studs. Experiments have shown that an anchor head area equal to 9 or 10 times. the cross-sectional area of stem can provide secure mechanical anchorage with negligible slip and develop full yield force for studs of yield stress fy up to 500 MPa (Ghali and Dilger 1998; Ghali and Youakim 2005). The studs are usually placed in the forms above reinforcement supports to ensure the specified concrete cover. tapered head with a maximum thickness of about 0.56 0.60 times the diameter of stem db is found to be sufficient for anchorage and strength (see Fig.10). When studs are used it Is not essentlal to place longitudinal bars behind heads. Without the longitudinal bars, the heads can produce anchorage sufficient to develop yield force in the studs. Headed studs reduce congestion in beam-column joints and in zones of lap splices. Headed studs have been used in a number of projects which include offshore structures, bridges, flat plates and other structures located in Europe, Australia, Asia and North ‘Ametica (Ghali and Youakim 2005), The lower bearing stress and smaller slip make studs more effective than conventional stirrups in controlling conerete cracks that intersect the stems at any location between the heads. A stud is longer than the effective part of a stirrup and this can intersect more shear cracks, When stirrups are used in lieu of studs, the distance d between the centroid of tensile reinforcement and the extreme compression fibre has to be smaller by the amount equal to the diameter of the stirrups (see Fig. 10). The reduction in flexural and shear strength of the member due to the smaller d has to be compensated by providing greater amount of flexural and shear reinforcement; this additional reinforcement may be significant in thin slabs (Ghali and Youakim 2008) Experiments have shown that higher shear stress in concrete can be allowed in slabs and beams when using stud reinforcement with anchor heads exhibiting no measurable slip. This supetior effectiveness of studs is, recognized in Canadian code CSA A-23:2004 by allowing, ‘a 50% higher shear stress in concrete with the use of headed studs than with conventional stirups. Clause 11.115 of ACI 318 permits the use of headed studs. As er this clause, in beams, where flexural tension reinforcement is at the bottom of the section, the overall height of the shear stud assembly should not be less than the thickness of the member less the sum of: (1) the conerete cover on the bottom flexural reinforcement; (2) the concrete cover on the head of the stud and (3) one- half the bar diameter of the bottom flexural reinforcement. When studs are used as shear reinforcement, clause 11.11.5.1 of ACI 318 allows a higher nominal shear strength, ve (MPa), resisted by concreteandsteelas = 0.6y far (aa) Italso recommends that within the shear reinforced zone shearstrength of concrete as OV fa av) Where, A is the modification factor for lightweight concrete. When stirrups are uses lower stresses only are permitted by ACI 318-05 as below: 1, = 045) f, (2a) 1. 015A fa (2b) Inaddition the ACI code allows the spacing between studs to be $0.75 d_ compared to 0.5 d for stirrups (when maximum shear stresses due to factored loads are less. than or equal to 0.4459 fck). These differences in TOI Journal | Ostober- December 2012 12Upper surface ofbeam —\ Lower surface, of beam Fig. 10 Conventional single-eg sirup and headed stud design rules permit lesser amount of shear reinforcement or thinner siab/beam when studs are used, Of course use of studs also has the advantage of saving in labour cost due to simplified installation of reinforcement. |S 456 does not contain provisions for design using headed studs as shear reinforcement. ‘Summary Transverse reinforcement in beams are necessary to resist the applied shear forces and forthe beam tofailina ductile manner when subjected to accidental loads. IS 456 allows the use of vertical stirups, bend-up bars along with stirrups, and inclined stirrups only, Due to continued research we now have @ number of other alternative transverse reinforcements such as headed studs, Welded wire mesh and spirals. A review of these possibilities has been provided for the benefit of structural designers. They have already been prescribed in the New Zealand code. Hope the Indian Code will also follow suit References 1. ACL 318M-2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2008, 473pp. 2. AC1421.1 R-08, Guide to Shear Reinforcement for Slabs, Reported by Joint ACLASCE Committee 421, American Concrete Institute, Farmington His, Michigan, June 2008, 23pp. 2, ACIASCE Committee 426, Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Members, Proceedings, ASCE, Journal of the Structural Div, Vol, 99, No. ST6, June 1973, pp. 1091- 1187 (contains extensive bibliography) 4, AC! 544.18 -96 (reapproved 2009), State-otthe-art Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1996, 64pp, 10, 2. 13. 14, 15, 16, a, 18, 19. Bach, F, MP. Nelsen, and MM. Braestrup, Shear Tests on Reinforced conerete beams, Svuctural Research Lab. Technical Universt/of Denmark, Copenhagen, 1980, 89pp (htto://ebs.biocentrum sitecore.ctu.dk/upload/institutte ‘/os@/ubliations/apporter/abk-r120.pdl) Ghali, A, and WH. Dilger, ‘Anchoring with double headed studs, Conerete International, AC, Vol, 20, No. 14, Nov. 1998, 99.21.24. Ghali, and_ S.A, Youakim, ‘Headed studs in concrete: state of the art, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 202, No. &, ‘SeptOct 2005, pp. 657-667, Hadi, MINS. and LC. Schmit, Use of helices for enhancing the properties of reinforced concrete beams International Journal of Materials and Product Technology, Vol. 18,No.3/4, 2003, 99.247-258 IS 486:2000, Code of practice for Plain and Reinforced ‘Concrete fourth Revision) IS 13620:1993, Indian Standard code of practice for Ductile detailing of reinforced concrete structures subjected to seismi forces, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 14pp (also see nito://wwmiith.acin/nicee /ITK-GSDMAVEQLL pat for the draft revised ection of code}. Jaafar, K, ‘Shear Behavior of reinforced concrete beams with confinement near plastic hinges’ Morley Symposium ‘on Concrete Plasticity and its Application, University of ‘Cambridge, 23rd July, 2007, pp.163-172 Leonhardt, F, Reducing the shear reinforcement in feinforeed concrete beams and slabs, Magazine of Conerete Research, Vol. 17, No, 83, Dec. 1968, pp. 187. 194. Leonhardt, F, and R, Walther, The Stuttgart Shear Tests, 11961’, Coment and Conerete Association, London, Library ‘Translation No 114, Translation by CV. Amerongen, 1964, 136 pp. Leonhardt, £, and E. Ménnig, Vorlosungen aber Massivebau, Dritter Teil Grundlagen zum Bewehren im Stahibetonbiau, Thiré edition, SpringerVer'ag, Berlin, 1977, 246pp. Lin, C-H,,and S-M. Perng Flexural behaviour of concrete beams with welded wire fabric as shear reinforcement, ACI Structural Joumal, Vol95, No.5, Sept-Oct 1998, pp.540-546 Narayanan, R., and LS Darwish, ‘Use of Stee! Fibers as ‘Shear Reinforcement, ACI Structural Joumal, Vol. 84, No, +3,May-June 1987, pp.216-227. NZS 3101:2008, Part 1: The design of Concrete structures, and Part 2: Commentary, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, 2006 (wnw.standards.co.n2). Park, R., and T. Pauiay, Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiey & Sons, New York, 1975, 76809. Parre-Montesinos, G, ., ‘Shear Strength of Beams with Deformed Stee! Fibers’, Concrete International, ACI, V. 28, No. 14, Nov. 2006, pp. 57-68, SSP 24: 1983, Explanatory Handbook on indian Standard Code of Practice for Piain and Reinforced Concrete (IS 456:1978), Indian Standards Institution, New Delh 1984, 164pp, Dr. N. Subramanian Consulting Engineer Gaithersburg, M.D., USA Nm Email: drnsmani®yahoo.com 12 161 Journal [October-December 2012