You are on page 1of 10

ORI GI NAL ARTI CLE

Strengthening of reinforced concrete beams in exure


by partial jacketing
Ibrahim Abd El Malik Shehata
Lidia da Conceicao Domingues Shehata
Euler Wagner Freitas Santos
Maria Luisa de Faria Simoes
Received: 24 August 2007 / Accepted: 12 June 2008 / Published online: 22 June 2008
RILEM 2008
Abstract This work investigates the structural
behaviour of reinforced concrete beams strengthened
in bending by the addition of concrete and steel on
their tension sides using expansion bolts as shear
connectors, technique here denominated partial jac-
keting. The experimental program comprised tests on
eight full-scale reinforced concrete beams, simply
supported, with rectangular cross section
(150 mm 9 400 mm) and 4,500 mm length. Five of
these beams were strengthened in bending by partial
jacketing, while the other three did not receive any
strengthening and served as reference beams. The
exural reinforcement ratio in the beams varied
between 0.49% and 2.33% and the beams target
concrete strength was 35 MPa. On the basis of the
obtained test results, the studied strengthening tech-
nique proven to be efcient in terms of increasing the
resistance and stiffness of the beams. The used
expansion bolts as shear connectors proven to be
practical and added ease to the application of this
technique.
Keywords Strengthening Flexural
Beams Partial jacketing Reinforced concrete
Notations
A
st
Total area of main steel
A
sb
Area of main steel in the beam
A
sr
Added area of main steel in the jacket
A
sw
Area of beam web steel
b Beam breadth
d Effective beam depth
f
cm
Average concrete compressive strength
f
ct
Tensile strength of concrete
f
y
Yield strength of reinforcement
L Length, span
P
u
Ultimate theoretical load
P
u,exp
Ultimate experimental load
s Spacing of web steel
/ Diameter
q
st
Total geometrical ratio of main reinforcement
q
sw
Geometrical ratio of web reinforcement
1 Introduction
Strengthening of beam in exure can be achieved by
composing its section with new structural elements,
either steel or reinforced concrete.
The use of composite beams to resist forces goes
far back in structure history. In old ages, engineers
I. Abd El Malik Shehata (&)
L. da Conceicao Domingues Shehata
E. Wagner Freitas Santos M. L. de Faria Simoes
Department of Civil Engneering, COPPEThe Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro, P.O. Box 68506,
CEP 21945-970 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
e-mail: ibrahim@coc.ufrj.br
L. da Conceicao Domingues Shehata
Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niteroi, RJ, Brazil
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504
DOI 10.1617/s11527-008-9397-3
used layered timber beams glued or tied to one
another to form a single strong beam.
In order to get the full benet of composite beam
section to the exural strength, the connection
between the assembled parts to compose the beam
section should be able to transmit longitudinal shear
stresses.
Generally, in reinforced concrete beams, the shear
stresses can be transmitted across the connection by
adhesion, by shear-friction at the concrete interface
and by the dowel action of reinforcing bars that cross
the connection.
Equations for evaluation of the shear resistance of
such connections were rst suggested by the ACI
code in 1963 and were based on the results of
different research works summarized in the ACI-
ASCE 333 report.
In 1970, the concept of shear-friction was intro-
duced by the ACI and was validated by the results of
direct shear tests on concrete blocks. During the
seventies and eighties, other empirical and analytical
expressions based on direct shear tests were also
proposed.
There are only a few studies on composite beams,
though work started as early as 1964 by Saemann and
Washa [11] followed by Nosseir and Murtha [9],
Loov and Patnaik [8], Araujo [3], Tan et al. [13] and
more recently by Gohnert [6].
Tests on strengthened composite beams by jacket-
ing are also few, and started as early as 1988 by
Alexandre et al. [1] followed by Souza [12], Liew
and Choeng [7], Choeng and Macalevey [4],
Piancastelli [10], and lately by Altun [2]. Only
Piancastelli [11] treated the case of partially jacketed
beams.
The present work aimed to contribute to the
understanding of the behaviour of strengthened
beams with partial jacketing using expansion bolts
as shear connectors.
2 Experimental program
This research program comprised tests on eight
beams divided into three groups. All beams had a
rectangular cross section of 150 mm 9 400 mm and
a total length of 4,500 mm. In these beams, the main
variables were the amount of original main steel and
amount of added steel in the jacket for exural
strengthening. Both the compressive mounting steel,
composed of two 8 mm bars, and the stirrups,
composed of 8 mm bars spaced at 150 mm, were
kept constant in all beams. The provided stirrups
were such as to prevent shear failure in any of the
beams and so were equal to the required for beam
REF3 with the highest exural steel ratio (2.33%).
The rst group (A) was composed of three beams
with original amount of main steel equal to 285 mm
2
(q
sb
= 0.49%) that were strengthened in exure by
adding three different areas of external steel,
300 mm
2
, 600 mm
2
and 800 mm
2
. The second group
(B) consisted of two beams with 600 mm
2
(q
sb
= 1.08%) of original main steel and likewise
the rst group was strengthened in exure by adding
steel areas of 300 mm
2
and 600 mm
2
. Three reference
beams formed the third group (C), with main steel
areas equal to 285 mm
2
(q
sb
= 0.49%), 600 mm
2
(q
sb
= 1.08%) and 1,230 mm
2
(q
sb
= 2.33%). Two
reference beams had amounts of steel equal to the
original steel of the rst and second groups while the
third one had an amount corresponding, approxi-
mately, to the balanced one. All used steel had
nominal yield strength of 500 MPa and was of the
round ribbed type. Details of the reinforcement of all
beams are given in Table 1 and are shown in Fig. 1.
The concrete used for the fabrication of the
beams was made of coarse aggregate with
maximum size of 19 mm (crushed stone type-
gneiss), river sand and rapid hardening cement. The
mix proportion, by mass, was of 1:2.71:3.58
Table 1 Characteristics of tested beams
Beam f
cm
(MPa)
d
(mm)
A
sb
(mm
2
)
A
sr
(mm
2
)
q
st
(%)
q
sw
(%)
A
sw
/s
(mm
2
/mm)
Group A
V1-A 41.6 382 285 300 1.02 0.45 0.67
V2-A 38.6 402 285 600 1.47 0.45 0.67
V3-A 39.2 409 285 800 1.77 0.45 0.67
Group B
V1-B 36.4 360 600 300 1.67 0.45 0.67
V2-B 41.4 377 600 600 2.12 0.45 0.67
Group C
REF1 36.2 386 285 0.49 0.45 0.67
REF2 41.4 369 600 1.08 0.45 0.67
REF3 40.8 351 1230 2.33 0.45 0.67
496 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504
(cement: sand: coarse aggregate), with water/cement
ratio = 0.6 and cement content equal to 300 kg/m
3
.
The average compressive strength of the concrete
for all beams is given in Table 1. The concrete
used for the jackets had the same mix proportion
and constituents as that of the beams except for
the maximum aggregate size which was 10 mm,
and had an average compressive strength of
32 MPa and an average indirect tensile strength of
2.5 MPa.
3 Beams strengthening
After the two initial loading cycles (explained in
Sect. 4) applied to pre-crack the beams, two lines, one
on each side of the beams, of expansion bolts holes
spaced at 150 mm(inner stirrups spacing) were drilled
(see Fig. 2). Each hole was distant 50 mm from the
bottom face of the beams and had a depth of 65 mm.
The position of each expansion bolt hole was chosen
to be as close as possible to an original beam stirrup
r = 90
4470
N2 - 5140mm
N1 - 4450mm
N3 - 4470mm
r = 90
N4 - 8 @150mm
A
A
75 75
3
0
0
N1-28 mm
N2-216mm
N3-16mm
3
8
5
3
7
0
120
80
8
0
8 @150mm
Section A-A for beams V1-B, V2-B & VREF2
150
N1-28 mm
N2- 316mm
N3-220mm
3
8
5
3
7
0
120
80
Section A-A for beam VREF3
150
8 @150mm
N1-28 mm
N2-210mm
N3-12.5mm
4
0
0
3
8
0
120
80
8
0
8 @150mm
150
Section A-A for beams V1-A, V2-A, V3-A and REF1
Fig. 1 Details of beam
original reinforcement
(dimensions in mm)
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504 497
and just above the beam main steel, in order to provide
good anchorage condition for the expansion bolts even
in the cracked stages of the beams.
As the bolts spacing was xed to 150 mm (stirrups
spacing), the denition of the bolts diameter depended
upon the maximum shearing force that would occur
between the beam and the jacket. The value of this
force corresponded to the one of beam V3-A, which
had the maximum jacket steel (800 mm
2
). For a
nominal jacket steel yield strength of 500 MPa, this
force is equal to 400 kN and the force per bolt,
considering 24 bolts in half length of the jacket, is
found to be 16.67 kN (giving an average shear
strength = 0.79 MPa). If the contribution of concrete
to the shear resistance of the interface between the
beam and the jacket is ignored, considering the bolt
nominal shear strength (half its yield strengthTresca
criteria of failure) equal to 250 MPa as provided by the
manufacturer, the required bolt area is 67 mm
2
, which
lead to a commercial bolt diameter of 10 mm.
Following the holes drilling, the beams bottom
surfaces and two bottom side bands of 80 mm in
width were prepared by removing the concrete cover
and leaving out a rough surface on a central extension
of 3,840 mm of the beam length. Expansion bolts of
10 mm in diameter and 110 mm in total length (see
Fig. 3) were then installed in the previously drilled
holes, leaving out, approximately, half of their
lengths exposed without the outer sleeves. The outer
sleeves were removed after bolts xation, in order to
assure good anchorage between the bolts used as
shear connectors and the jacket concrete.
150
1
5
0
100 100
4
7
0
7
0
Strengthening Jacket
Original Beam
SECTION A-A
A
A
80
4500
3840
80
Strengthening Jacket
Expansion Bolts
10mm x 110 mm
25 expansion bolts @150mm each side
A
A
65 65
7
0
1
2
0
SECTION A-A
50mm
40mm
Stirrups
B
DETAIL B
Fig. 2 Strengthening
details (dimensions in mm)
498 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504
The strengthening steel cages shown in Fig. 4
were then tied to the exposed expansion bolts as seen
in Fig. 5. Following the xation of trapezoidal
formwork to the bottom of the beam, the jacket
concrete was cast. After the complete curing of the
jacket concrete for about 14 days, the strengthened
beams were replaced in the test rig for the application
of the last loading cycle.
4 Test procedure and results
The beams were simply supported at a span of
4,000 mm (from centre to centre) in the test rig seen
in Fig. 6. They were loaded at their centre by means
of a servo controlled hydraulic jack (load/displace-
ment) with a 500 kN capacity. All the beams had
instrumentation to measure the longitudinal steel
deformations (both beam and jacket steel), the
Fig. 3 Expansion bolts used as shear connectors
Strengthening of beams V1-A and V1-B
28
N1 - 48 - 3810mm
N2 - 28 - 3810mm
N3-5 @150mm (see detail)
Strengthening of beams V2-A and V2-B
N1 - 48 - 3810mm
N4 - 216 - 3810mm
N3-5 @150mm (see detail)
Strengthening of beams V3-A
N1 - 48 - 3810mm
N4 - 316 - 3810mm
N3-5 @150mm (see detail)
48
216
48
316
48
Expansion Bolts
A
A
B
B
C
C
Section A-A
Section B-B
Section C-C
3
4
4
3
8
6
4
4
6
3
4
4
3
8
6
4
4
2
3
4
4
3
8
6
4
4
2
10 @150mm
120
70 70
1
2
0
180
8
0
N3 - 5.0 - 715mm
Stirrups detail - N3
Fig. 4 Details of
strengthening reinforcement
in the jackets (dimensions
in mm)
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504 499
concrete deformations, the beams deections at
sections near mid-span and the slipping between
the jacket and beam along the interface.
The beams were loaded in steps of 10 or 20 kN,
according to the beam estimated loading capacity,
that lasted for about 10 min each, during which the
measurements were taken together with crack map-
ping and crack width measurement.
Generally, all the beams had three loading cycles.
In the rst, the beams initially uncracked and still
without strengthening were loaded until the strains in
their exural steel reached a value close to 2%, and
then unloaded. The second cycle was a repetition of
the rst one but with the beams in the pre-cracked
state. The last load cycle, which had lead to the
beams failure, was applied to the reference beams
soon after the second cycle, while to the beams of
group A and B after strengthening.
Table 2 gives the experimental ultimate load for
the tested beams and the obtained modes of failure.
Figures 7 and 8 show the aspect of the typical
exural and shear modes of failure occurred in the
tested beams. It is worth noting that, in beam V2-A,
the shearing of the jacket occurred long after the
yielding of the exural reinforcement, while, in
beam V3-A, both occurred practically at the same
time.
The obtained results for the beams deections, the
beams main steel strains, the jackets main steel
strains and the maximum relative displacement
between the beams and the jackets are shown in
Figs. 914. Relative displacement between the beam
and jacket occurred only in beams V2-A and V3-A
Fig. 5 Fixation of the
strengthening steel cages
Reaction floor
Beam
Jack
250 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 250
Hinge
Roller
(dimensions in mm)
Fig. 6 Test rig
Table 2 Ultimate loads and modes of failure
Beam q
st
(%) d (mm) P
u,exp
(kN) Failure mode
V1-A 1.02 382 150 Flexural
V2-A 1.47 402 205 Flexural/Shear
V3-A 1.77 409 229 Flexural/Shear
V1-B 1.67 360 186 Flexural
V2-B 2.12 377 235 Flexural
REF1 0.49 386 72 Flexural
REF2 1.08 369 130 Flexural
REF3 2.33 351 219 Flexural
500 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504
and, hence, only two curves are provided at the
locations where maximum displacements occurred,
which were at the jacket ends (Figs. 13 and 14).
5 Analysis of the results
Considering the rectangular stress block as dened by
the CEB-FIP MC-90 [5] and the yielding of all
longitudinal steel, the resistance exure moment of
Fig. 7 Typical exural failure for the strengthened beams
(V1-B)
Fig. 8 Typical shear failure between the beam and jacket for
the strengthened beams (V3-A)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Deflection (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
V1-A V2-A V3-A REF1 REF3
Fig. 9 Load-deection curves for the beams of the rst group
together with reference beams REF1 and REF3
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 20 40 60 80 100
Deflection (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
V1-B V2-B REF2 RFF3
Fig. 10 Load-deection curves for the beams of the second
group together with reference beams REF2 and REF3
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 5 10 15 20
Steel strain (E-3)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
V1-A JV1-A V2-A
JV2-A V3-A JV3-A
REF1
Fig. 11 Load-main steel strain at mid span curves for the
beams of the rst group together with reference beam REF1
(letter J refers to the Jacket)
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 10 20 30 40 50
Steel strain (E-3)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
V1-B JV1-B V2-B JV2-B REF2
Fig. 12 Load-main steel strain at mid span curves for the
beams of the second group together with reference beam REF2
(letter J refers to the Jacket)
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504 501
the strengthened beam section can be calculated as
(see Fig. 15):
M
u
A
s
f
y
d 0:4x A
sr1
f
y
d
1
0:4x A
sr2
f
y
d
2
0:4x A
0
s
f
y
0:4x d
0
1
with the neutral axis positioned at
x
A
s
f
y
A
sr1
f
y
A
sr2
f
y
A
0
s
f
y
0:85f
c
0:8b
2
The ultimate load (P
u
) and average ultimate shear
stress (s
u
) at the interface between the original beam
and the jacket, considering the load arrangement of
the beam (simply supported with concentrated load at
mid span), can be calculated from the resistance
moment and from the force in the jacket steel at yield
stress, so as (see Fig. 16)
P
u

4 M
u
L
3
s
u

P
A
sr
f
y
A
i
4
where A
i
is the interface area between the beam and
the jacket, L is the beam nominal span.
For the tested beams the interface area (A
i
) is (see
Fig. 16)
A
i
80 120 80 1920 537600 mm
2
Table 3 gives the calculated and experimental
values for the ultimate load together with the ultimate
shear stress at yield of the jacket steel. In this table it
is also quoted the ratios between the experimental
and theoretical values of the ultimate load together
with the ratio between the experimental ultimate load
for the strengthened beams and the ultimate load of
the reference beam for the corresponding group.
From the comparisons made in that table (P
u,exp
/ P
u
and P
u,exp
/ P
REF
*), it is evident that the composite
strengthened section of the tested beams acted
monolithically until yielding of the main reinforce-
ment and the increase in the beams strength varied
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
Relative displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
V2-A
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Fig. 13 Load-maximum relative displacement curves between
the beam V2-A and the jacket
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 5 10 15 20
Relative displacement (mm)
L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
V3-A
Fig. 14 Load-maximum relative displacement curves between
the beam V3-A and the jacket
Tr1
Cc
Cs
As'
As
's

c
0.8x
x
0.85fc b
h
Asr,1
d1
d
d2
Asr,2
sr2
s
sr1
T
Tr2
Fig. 15 Section analysis
502 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504
between 43% and 210% according to the added
amount of steel.
Only beams V2-A and V3-A had relative dis-
placement between the beams and jackets after yield
loads, 150 kN and 175 kN, respectively, as seen in
Figs. 13 and 14. In beam V2-A, the relative dis-
placement stayed below 1 mm up to the ultimate
load, while in beam V3-A it reached 17 mm at the
end of the jackets, where maximum displacement
occurred in both beams. From the values of P
u,exp
/ P
u
of those beams quoted in Table 3, it can be concluded
that the shear strength was very close to the
theoretical exural strength of both beams and the
shear strength slightly affected the exure strength by
dropping the value of P
u,exp
/ P
u
from 1.14, average
value obtained for the beams failed in exure, to 1.06
and 1.00 for V2-A and V3-A, respectively.
Figures 9 and 10 show the comparison between the
load-deection curves for both strengthened (groups A
and B) and reference beams (group C). From these
gures it can be seen that the strengthened beams have
gained both rigidity and strength as the amount of steel
added to them in the jackets increased. The load-
deection curves of the strengthened beams lie above
that of the reference beam of each group (REF1 or
REF2) and show comparable or even better behaviour
than the one of the reference beam with highest steel
ratio (REF3). The higher strength and/or rigidity of the
strengthened beams V3-A (A
st
= 1,085 mm
2
) and
V2-B (A
st
= 1,200 mm
2
) in comparison to the refer-
ence beam REF3 (A
st
= 1,230 mm
2
) can be attributed
to the differences in the effective depth of those beams:
409mm, 377mm and 351 mm, respectively.
As for the steel strain, the comparison of Figs. 11
and 12 showthat the jacket steel strain followed closely
the original beam steel strain at all load levels till the
yield of both steels. After this stage, there are slight
differences between the strains of both steels, except
for beams V2-A and V3-A, which showed higher
differences due to the exertion of beam-to-jacket shear.
As for the concrete contribution to the shear
strength of the connection between the beam and
jacket, it is evident from the result of beam V3-A that
such contribution does not exist in the ultimate limit
Section
Shear stress
Tr = Asr .f y

Ls = 1920mm
80
120
P
Fig. 16 Shear stress
transfer at the interface
Table 3 Comparisons between estimated and experimental failure loads
Beam q
st
d (mm) P
u
(kN) P
u,exp
(kN) P
u,exp
/ P
u
P
u,exp
/ P
REF
* s
u
(MPa)
V1-A 1.02 382 130 150 1.15 2.08 0.28
V2-A 1.47 402 193 205 1.06 2.84 0.56
V3-A 1.77 409 229 229 1.00 3.10 0.74
V1-B 1.67 360 156 186 1.19 1.43 0.28
V2-B 2.12 377 212 235 1.11 1.80 0.56
REF1 0.49 386 64 72 1.13
REF2 1.08 369 112 130 1.16
REF3 2.33 351 197 219 1.11
P
u
= theoretical ultimate load based on the rectangular stress block for concrete and nominal yield strength for steel = 500 MPa
P
u,exp
= experimental ultimate load
* For Group A P
REF
= P
u,exp
for beam REF1 = 72 kN and for Group B P
REF
= P
u,exp
for beam REF2 = 130 kN
Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504 503
state. This beam had the shear strength of its
expansion bolts designed to be equal to the maximum
force in the jacket (400 kN) and, at ultimate load, the
jacket sheared off the beam right after yielding of the
jacket steel, which means that concrete did not
provide any contribution to the shear resistance of the
connection. The lack of concrete contribution can be
explained by the modied MohrCoulomb criteria of
failure for concrete, which predicts zero shear
strength combined with a tensile normal stress equal
to f
ct
(tensile concrete strength), state of stress for
concrete at the connection.
For all other beams, where the shear strength of the
bolts were higher than the maximumforce in the jacket,
shearing of the connection did not occur or was a
secondary mode of failure as happened in beam V2-A.
6 Conclusions
This work presents a simple and efcient technique to
strengthen beams in exure using traditional materi-
als and construction procedures. The introduction of
expansion bolts as shear connectors added quickness
and ease to the application of the strengthening.
The test results have proven that this technique is
efcient once the connection is properly designed. As
a general rule, for the design of the connection it is
recommended that:
No count is made for concrete contribution to the
shear strength of the connection.
The amount of the expansion shear bolts is
calculated so as their shear strength be more than
or equal to the maximum force in the jacket.
The insertion of the expansion bolts in either the
beam or in the jacket should be greater than ve
times the bolt diameter and not lesser than 50 mm
(based on manufacturer recommendations and on
test carried out in another research program that
will be the subject of another paper), in order to
get proper anchorage.
Holes of the expansion bolts should be as close as
possible to the original stirrups and original main
steel of the beams.
Exposed part of the expansion bolts should be left
without the extension (outer) sleeves and should
be as close as possible to a jacket stirrups and
jacket main steel.
Although no count for concrete contribution to
the shear strength of the connection is made, it is
recommended that a proper surface roughness of
the beam surface is made, in order to get good
adhesion between the beam and the jacket con-
cretes for durability purposes.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank
HOLCIM and the Brazilian government nancing agencies
CNPq and CAPES for supporting this project.
References
1. Alexandre ALC, Caravello F, Reis MSC, Correia SB
(1988) Experimental verication of the behavior of
strengthened RC beams. Internal Report. Universidade do
Estado do Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil (in Portuguese)
2. Altun F (2004) An experimental study of the jacketed
reinforced-concrete beams under bending. Constr Build
Mater 18:611618
3. Araujo DL (1997) Shear stresses at the interface of pre-
fabricated and cast in place concrete elements subjected to
exure. M.Sc. thesis, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Carlos,
Brazil (in Portuguese)
4. Cheong, HK, Macalevey N (2000) Experimental behavior
of jacketed reinforced concrete beams. J Struct Eng
126(6):692699
5. Comite Euro-International du Beton (1991) CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990. CEB Bulletin dInformation, n. 213
214, France
6. Gohnert M (2000) Proposed theory to determine the hori-
zontal shear between composite precast and in situ
concrete. Cem Concr Compos 22(6):469476
7. Liew SC, Cheong HK (1991) Flexural behavior of jacketed
RC beams. Concr Int Detroit 13(12):4347
8. Loov RE, Patnaik AK (1994) Horizontal shear strength of
composite concrete beams with a rough interface. PCI J
39(1):4867
9. Nosseir SB, Murtha RN (1971) Ultimate horizontal shear
strength of prestressed split beams. Technical Report
NCEL-TR707, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Port
Hueneme, CA
10. Piancastelli EM, Calixto JMF (2002) Flexural strengthening
of beams under loading. Instituto Brasileiro do Concreto -
44 Congresso Brasileiro, Belo horizonte, Minas Gerais,
Brazil (in Portuguese)
11. Saemann SP, Washa GW (1964) Horizontal shear con-
nections between precast beams and cast-in-place slabs.
ACI J 61:(11):13831408
12. Souza RHF (1990) Analysis of the behavior of R.C.
strengthened in exure and shear. D.Sc. thesis, Univer-
sidade tecnica de Lisboa, IST, Lisbon, Portugal (in
Portuguese)
13. Tan KH, Guan LW, Lu X (1999) Horizontal shear strength
of indirectly loaded composite concrete beams. ACI J
96(4):533538
504 Materials and Structures (2009) 42:495504