Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 612–620

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

An experimental study on shear strength of reinforced concrete beams

with 100% recycled concrete aggregate
Mahdi Arezoumandi a,⇑, Adam Smith a,1, Jeffery S. Volz b,2, Kamal H. Khayat c,3
a
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 212 Butler Carlton Hall, 1401 N. Pine Street, Rolla,
MO 65409, United States
b
School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, 423 Carson Engineering Center, 202 W. Boyd St., Norman, OK 73019-1024, United States
c
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, 224 Engineering Research Lab, 500 W. 16th St., Rolla,
MO 65409-0710, United States

h i g h l i g h t s

 The RAC beams possess 12% lower shear strength compared with the CC beams.
 The MCFT method predicts shear strength of the RAC beams very well.
 The RAC test results fall within a 95% confidence interval of the CC shear test database.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An experimental investigation was conducted to study the shear strength of full-scale beams constructed
Received 29 August 2013 with 100% recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) as well as conventional concrete (CC). This experimental
Received in revised form 4 December 2013 program consisted of 12 beams (six for each concrete type). The test parameters for this study include
Accepted 9 December 2013
longitudinal reinforcement ratio and concrete type. The experimental shear strengths of the beams were
Available online 8 January 2014
compared with the shear provisions of both U.S. and international design codes (U.S., Australia, Canada,
Europe, and Japan) as well as a shear database of CC specimens. The shear strengths of the beams were
Keywords:
also evaluated based on different fracture mechanics approaches and the modified compression field
Recycled concrete aggregate
Conventional concrete
theory (MCFT) method. Furthermore, statistical data analyses (both parametric and non-parametric)
Shear strength were performed to evaluate whether or not there was any statistically significant difference between
Experimental study the shear strength of the recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) and CC beams. Results of these statistical
tests show that the 100% RCA beams possess approximately 12% lower shear strength compared with
the CC beams.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Unfortunately, global data on concrete waste generation is not

Recently, there has been an increasing trend toward the use of
sustainable materials. Sustainability helps the environment by
reducing the consumption of non-renewable natural resources.
Concrete – the second most consumed material in the world after
water – uses a significant amount of non-renewable resources. As a
result, numerous researchers have investigated the use of recycled
materials in the production of concrete such as fly ash [1–4] and
recycled aggregate [5–12].
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 573 341 6372; fax: +1 573 341 4729.
E-mail addresses: ma526@mst.edu (M. Arezoumandi), amsgd7@mst.edu (A.
Smith), volz@ou.edu (J.S. Volz), khayatk@mst.edu (K.H. Khayat).
1
Tel.: +1 573 341 6372; fax: +1 573 341 6512.
2 showed 10–20% lower shear strength compared with the CC
Tel.: +1 573 341 6280; fax: +1 573 341 4729.
3
Tel.: +1 573 341 6223; fax: +1 573 341 4729.
available, but construction and demolition waste accounts for
around 900 million tones every year just in Europe, the US, and Ja-
pan [13]. Recycling concrete not only reduces using virgin aggre-
gate but also decreases landfills.
Comprehensive research has been done on both the fresh and
hardened properties of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC), but lim-
ited, and often contradictory, research has been performed on the
structural behavior of RAC. The early research on structural perfor-
mance of RAC was published in Japan [5]. Maruyama et al. [6]
tested beams with different longitudinal reinforcement ratios ran-
ged between 2.4% and 4.2%. They also investigated three different
water/cementitious material ratios, w/cm, (0.30, 0.45, and 0.60)
for their mix designs. They reported that the crack patterns and
failure modes of the RAC beams were identical with the conven-
tional concrete (CC) beams. The RAC beams without stirrups
beams.

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.12.019
 M. Arezoumandi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 612–620 613

Gonzalez-Fonteboa and Martinez-Abella [7] tested eight beams
with 3% longitudinal reinforcement ratio and 50% recycled coarse
aggregate. Results of their study showed that in terms of both
deflection and ultimate shear strength, no significant difference
was observed between the RAC and CC beams, but they observed
notable splitting cracks along the tension reinforcement. They con-
cluded that existing code provisions for shear can be used for the
RAC beams. González-Fonteboa et al. [8] repeated the previous
study except for adding 8% silica fume to the mix designs. They ob-
served that notable splitting cracks along the tension reinforce-
ments were mitigated by the addition of silica fume.
Choi et al. [9] evaluated the shear strength of 20 reinforced con-
crete beams with different span-to-depth ratios (1.50, 2.50, and
3.25), longitudinal reinforcement ratios (0.53%, 0.83%, and 1.61%),
and RCA replacement ratios (0%, 30%, 50%, and 100%). Results of
their study showed that the shear strength of the RAC beams
was lower than that of the CC beams with the same reinforcement
ratio and shear span-to-depth ratio. They reported that beams with
smaller span-to-depth ratios and higher percentage of recycled
aggregate showed a higher reduction in shear strength.
Fathifazl et al. [10] used the equivalent mortar volume (EMV)
method for their mix designs. They used both limestone (63.5%
recycled aggregate replacement) and river gravel (74.3% recycled
aggregate replacement) as a coarse aggregate for their mix designs.
They tested beams with four different shear span-to-depth ratios
ranging between 1.5 and 4, and also with four different effective
depths (250, 375, 450, and 550 mm) to investigate size effect. They
reported superior shear strength for the RAC beams. They also con-
cluded that current code provisions for shear conservatively pre-
dicted the capacities of the RAC beams.
Schubert et al. [11] studied 14 slabs (0.2  0.5  2.3 m) with
100% recycled coarse aggregate under four point load condition.
They concluded that RAC slabs can be designed using the same de-
sign equations as for CC.
Xiao et al. [12] tested 32 shear push-off specimens with
different percentages of recycled coarse aggregate replacement.
They reported no significant difference observed in terms of shear
stress-slip curves, crack propagation path, and shear transfer per-
formance across cracks between the RAC and CC specimens. They
This mix design was used to construct control specimens to serve as baseline
comparisons to the RAC mix and will also serve as parent material for the RCA
source. The resulting concrete was ground at 28 days of age into aggregate with a
maximum nominal aggregate size of 25 mm. Test results for the coarse aggregate
used in the CC mix design as well as the resulting RAC are shown in Table 1. As ex-
pected, the RCA had lower specific gravity and unit weight and considerably higher
absorption. The Los Angeles abrasion test results were virtually identical. For the
RAC mix, all the ingredients were the same except the coarse aggregate was 100%
recycled coarse aggregate (by volume) that contained 46.1% residual mortar (by
mass).
The longitudinal and shear reinforcement steel consisted of ASTM A615-12 [14],
Grade 60, (414 MPa) material. All of the reinforcing bars were from the same heat of
steel, used the same deformation pattern, and met the requirements of ASTM A615-
12. Table 2 shows the tested mechanical properties of the reinforcing steel.
The concrete mixtures with a target compressive strength of 35 MPa were
delivered by a local ready-mix concrete supplier (Rolla, MO). The purpose of using
the ready-mix supplier was to validate the RAC concept in actual concrete produc-
tion runs. The mixture proportions, fresh and hardened properties of both the CC
and RAC mixes are given in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
3.2. Details of test beams
Six beams without stirrups were constructed for each concrete type. Beams
with three different longitudinal reinforcement ratios (1.27%, 2.03%, and 2.71%)
were designed to preclude flexural failure and satisfy the minimum and maximum
longitudinal reinforcement requirements of ACI 318-11 [15]. All beams tested in
this program had a rectangular cross section with a width of 300 mm, a height of
460 mm, a length of 4300 mm, and shear span-to-depth ratios of 3.0 or greater
(Fig. 1). The beam designation included a combination of letters and numbers: NS
stands for no stirrups and numbers 4, 6, and 8 indicate the number of #22
(22 mm diameter) longitudinal reinforcement bars within the tension area of the
beam section. For example, NS-6 indicates a beam with no stirrups within the shear
test regions and 6 #22 bars within the bottom of the beam.
3.3. Fabrication and curing of test specimens
Specimens were constructed, cured, and tested in the Structural Engineering
High-Bay Research Laboratory (SERL) at Missouri University of Science and Technol-
ogy. After casting, the beam specimens and the quality control/quality assurance
companion cylinders (ASTM C39-12 [16] and C496-11 [17]) and beams (ASTM
C78-10 [18]) were covered with both wet burlap and plastic sheeting. All of the
beams and companion cylinders were moist cured for seven days and, after form-
work removal, were stored in a semi-controlled environment with a temperature
range of 18–24 °C and a relative humidity range of 30–50% until they were tested
at an age of 28 days.

also concluded that recycled aggregate replacement up to 30%

did not affect ultimate shear load, but for higher percentages of 3.4. Test setup and procedure
RCA replacement, the ultimate shear load decreased.
3.4.1. Testing facilities
A load frame was assembled and equipped with two 490-kN, servo-hydraulic
2. Research significance actuators intended to apply the two point loads to the beams. The load was applied
in a displacement control method with a rate of 0.50 mm/min. The shear beams
were supported on a roller and a pin support, 300 mm from each end of the beam,
Based on a review of the existing literature, there is a lack of creating a four-point loading situation with the two actuators (Fig. 1).
full-scale shear testing of RAC specimens, particularly with 100%
replacement of virgin aggregate. Without this background, there
is no quantitative basis for safely implementing RAC in structural Table 1
design. Consequently, the authors, in conjunction with the Mis- Aggregate properties.
souri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), developed a testing Property CC RCA
plan to evaluate shear strength of RAC specimens with local mate- Bulk specific gravity, oven-dry 2.72 2.35
rials. The mix designs, based on standard mixes currently used by Dry-rodded unit weight (kg/m3) 1600 1440
MoDOT, was on the lower end of cement content in order to devel- Absorption (%) 0.98 4.56
op a relatively harsh mix to investigate constructability issues LA abrasion (% loss) 43 41
common to RAC. The experimental program, test results, and anal-
yses for this study are presented in the following discussion.

Table 2
3. Experimental investigation Mechanical properties of reinforcing steel.

3.1. Materials and mixture proportions Bar no. Yield stress Ultimate stress Modulus of elasticity Elongation
(MPa) (%)
For the CC mix, ASTM Type I portland cement, crushed limestone with a maxi- 10 494 746 206,890 11.7
mum nominal aggregate size of 25 mm from the Potosi quarry (Potosi, MO) were 13 510 698 196,570 13.3
used. The fine aggregate was natural sand from Missouri River Sand (Jefferson City, 22 449 687 193,140 16.3
MO).
614 M. Arezoumandi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 612–620

Table 3
Mixture proportions of concrete.

Material Water (kg/m3) Cement (kg/m3) Fine aggregate (kg/m3) Coarse aggregate (kg/m3) Recycled coarse aggregate (kg/m3) AE (l/m3) HRWR (l/m3)
CC 126 315 725 1135 – 0.62 1.65
RAC 126 315 800 – 880 0.21 1.25

Table 4
Fresh and hardened concrete properties. Table 5
Test results summary.
Property CC-1 CC-2 RAC-1 RAC-2
pffiffiffiffi
Slump (mm) 140 205 210 130
Sections fc0 (MPa) Vtest* (kN) vtest = Vtest/bwd (MPa) v test =fc0
Air content (%) 8.5 9.0 6.5 5.0 CC
Unit weight (kg/m3) 2330 2340 2180 2220 NS-4 1 37.3 121.2 1.0 0.16
Compressive strength* (MPa) 37.2 34.2 30.0 34.1 2 34.2 129.9 1.1 0.18
Split tensile strength* (MPa) 3.48 2.97 2.55 2.65 NS-6 1 37.3 143.2 1.3 0.21
Flexural tensile strength** (MPa) 3.45 2.90 2.81 2.76 2 34.2 167.0 1.5 0.25
* NS-8 1 37.3 173.5 1.5 0.25
Values represent the average of three cylinders (ASTM C39-12 and C496-11).
** 2 34.2 170.8 1.5 0.26
Values represent the average of three beams (ASTM C78-10).
RAC
NS-4 1 30.0 114.8 0.9 0.17
2 34.1 113.0 0.9 0.16
3.4.2. Instrumentations
NS-6 1 30.0 143.2 1.3 0.23
A linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) and strain gauges were used to
2 34.1 124.1 1.1 0.19
measure the deflection at the beam center and strain in the reinforcement. The
NS-8 1 30.0 131.4 1.2 0.21
strain gauges were installed on the lower layer of the bottom longitudinal rein-
2 34.1 140.3 1.2 0.21
forcement at midspan (maximum flexural moment location) and quarter point
along the span (middle of the shear test region). Fig. 1 shows both the beam loading *
Includes part of the load frame not registered by the load cells (9 kN) and also the
pattern and the location of the strain gauges. During the test, any cracks that beam self-weight at a distance d from the interior face of the support plate.
formed on the surface of the beam were marked at approximately 22 kN load incre-
ments, and both the deformation and strains were monitored until the beam
reached failure.
As it can be seen from Table 5, comparison between the exper-
imental shear strength and ACI 318-11 shear provisions shows this
4. Behavior of test specimens equation overestimates the shear strength of the two beams (one
for the CC and one for the RAC mix) with low longitudinal
4.1. Failure mode reinforcement ratios, which has also been reported by other
researchers [19].
Table 5 summarizes the compressive strength, fc0 , shear force, All of the beams failed in shear. Failure occurred when the in-
Vtest, average shear stress at failure, Vtest/bwd, and ratio of the aver- clined crack penetrated to the compression zone of the beam near
age p shear stress to square root of the compressive strength, the loading plate prior to yielding of the longitudinal reinforce-
ffiffiffiffi
vtest = fc0 , to compare with ACI 318-11 shear provisions, Equation ment as observed in Fig. 2. None of the longitudinal reinforcement
11–3, rewritten in terms of average shear stress for normal weight reached yield at failure, as expected, based upon data collected
concrete and shown as the following equation. from the attached strain gauges.
qffiffiffiffi
v c ¼ 0:17 fc0 ð1Þ 4.2. Crack pattern

where vc is the nominal shear stress provided by concrete (MPa); fc0 After the appearance of flexural cracks in the maximum mo-
is the specified compressive strength of concrete (MPa). ment region, by increasing the load, new flexural cracks were

1.2 m 1.2 m 1.2 m

6#10@ 50 mm 7#10 6#10@ 50 mm

: strain gauge

NS-4 NS-6 NS-8

ρ (%) 1.27 2.03 2.71

(a) Test set up and load pattern (b) Cross sections and reinforcement layout
Fig. 1. Load pattern, cross sections, and location of strain gauges on the test beams.
M. Arezoumandi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 612–620 615

CC-NS-4-1

RAC-NS-4-1

CC-NS-6-1

RAC -NS-6-1

CC-NS-8-1

RAC -NS-8-1

CC-NS-4-2

RAC-NS-4-2

CC-NS-6-2

RAC -NS-6-2

CC-NS-8-2

RAC -NS-8-2

Fig. 2. Crack patterns of the beams on shear failure.

616 M. Arezoumandi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 612–620

400 400

300 300

Load (kN)

Load (kN)
200 200

100 100
A A NS-4-1 NS-4-1
NS-6-1 A A
NS-6-1
NS-8-1 NS-8-1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm)
(a) CC (b) RAC
Fig. 3. Load–deflections of the beams.

formed between the load and support regions. Upon further
increasing the applied load, the majority of the flexural cracks
developed vertically and after that inclined flexure-shear
cracks began to appear. As the load increased further, the inclined
cracks progressed both upward toward the applied load plate and
horizontally along the longitudinal reinforcement toward the sup-
port (see Fig. 2).
Fig. 3 shows the load–deflection behavior for the beams with
different longitudinal reinforcement ratios (the deflection was
measured at midspan). Before the first flexural cracks occurred
(point A), all of the beams displayed a linear elastic behavior. After
additional application of load, the beams eventually developed the
critical flexure-shear crack. As expected, sections with a higher
percentage of longitudinal reinforcement had a higher shear capac-
ity, except for RAC-NS-6-1, which can be attributed to a combina-
tion of additional dowel action [20], tighter shear cracks and thus
an increase in aggregate interlock, and a larger concrete compres-
sion zone due to a downward shift of the neutral axis.
5. Predictions of shear behavior
5.1. Shear provisions of different codes
In the following section, the experimental shear strengths of the
beams are compared with the shear provisions of the following
codes: AASHTO LRFD-10 [21], ACI 318-11, AS 3600-09 [22], CSA-
04 [23], Eurocode 2-05 [24], and JSCE-07 [25].
All of the design provisions require shear reinforcement in the
event that the applied shear exceeds the concrete contribution to
shear. However, the codes vary as to at what point that shear
reinforcement is required. For example, ACI 318-11 requires a
minimum amount of shear reinforcement when the applied shear
exceeds one-half of the concrete contribution. The Eurocode 2 is
the one exception that requires a minimum amount of shear rein-
forcement in all members.
5.1.2. Comparison of shear provisions of selected design codes
For the following comparison of test results to code predicted
values, all of the safety factors were set equal to one and all ulti-
mate moments and shear forces were calculated without load
factors.
Table 6 presents the ratio of experimental-to-code predicted
capacity (Vtest/Vcode) for each of the selected design standards.
Overall, the ratios range from 0.80 to 1.54 for the CC and 0.76 to
1.38 for the RAC beams. The shear provisions of AASHTO LRFD-
10, AS 3600-09, CSA-04, and Eurocode 2-05 overestimated the
shear capacity for the majority of RAC beams. In contrast, JSCE-
07 was the only code that underestimated the shear strengths for
all the CC and RAC beams. More importantly, ratios for the RAC
beams are lower than the CC beams, which imply that the current
design standards are not applicable to RAC beams and require
some modification to reflect the lower shear capacity of this type
of concrete.
Table 6
Vtest/Vcode for the selected codes.

5.1.1. Similarities and differences among the design codes Section AASHTO ACI AS-3600 CSA Eurocode 2 JSCE
With regard to the concrete contribution to shear strength, the CC
design code provisions are generally a function of the following NS-4 1 0.82 0.98 0.97 0.80 0.90 1.09
considerations: 2 0.95 1.10 1.07 0.93 0.99 1.21
NS-6 1 0.94 1.24 1.02 0.92 0.96 1.16
2 1.23 1.51 1.23 1.20 1.15 1.39
 Web width (bw or bv).
NS-8 1 1.11 1.50 1.12 1.09 1.16 1.28
 Effective depth, where some provisions use effective flexural 2 1.13 1.54 1.14 1.11 1.17 1.29
depth (d), but some use effective shear depth (dv = max Ave. 1.03 1.31 1.09 1.01 1.05 1.24
(0.72 h, 0.9 d)). COV (%) 14.7 18.2 8.4 14.8 11.5 8.5
 Compressive strength of the concrete, where some provisions RAC
use the square root of the compressive strength of concrete NS-4 1 0.85 1.04 0.99 0.83 0.91 1.11
(AASHTO LRFD-10, ACI 318-11, CSA-04, and JSCE-07) others 2 0.78 0.96 0.93 0.76 0.86 1.05
NS-6 1 1.05 1.38 1.10 1.03 1.03 1.25
use the cube root (AS 3600-09 and Eurocode 2-05). 2 0.81 1.12 0.91 0.79 0.85 1.04
 Longitudinal reinforcement ratio, where some provisions use NS-8 1 0.84 1.27 0.92 0.83 0.94 1.04
longitudinal reinforcement ratio with a power of one, while 2 0.86 1.27 0.94 0.85 0.97 1.06
others use the cube root, but AASHTO-LRFD-10 and CSA-04 Ave. 0.87 1.17 0.96 0.85 0.93 1.09
COV (%) 11.0 13.6 7.4 11.2 7.2 7.5
use strain of the longitudinal steel and concrete, respectively.
 M. Arezoumandi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 612–620 617

With regard to the ratios that fell below 1.0 – an unconservative
result – this situation has been observed by other researchers [19],
and it is important to note that the majority of standards do not al-
low sections without stirrups unless the factored shear force is sig-
nificantly less than the concrete capacity in shear.
As expected, the AASHTO LRFD-10 and CSA-04 results were very
close, since both are based on the modified compression field the-
ory (MCFT).
5.2. Comparison of test results with fracture mechanics approaches
Some researchers [27–29] have used fracture mechanics ap-
proaches to predict the shear strength of reinforced concrete mem-
bers without stirrups. Bažant and Yu [27] proposed Eq. (2) for shear
strength of reinforced concrete members without stirrups.
 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 d u u fc0
V c ¼ 10q8 1 þ t bw d
as 1 þ 02 d pffiffiffiffi
3 3800
fc da
Gastebled and May [28] presented an analytical model (Eq. (3))
based on the fracture energy for splitting tensile crack propagation
that releases longitudinal reinforcement from surrounding con-
crete (Mode I fracture energy).
 1 pffiffiffiffiffi
1:109 d 3 1 pffiffiffiffi 2
V c ¼ pffiffiffi q6 ð1  qÞ3 fc00:35 Es bw d
d as
More recently, Xu et al. [29] proposed Eq. (4) based on the
required fracture energy to release interface bond resistance be-
tween the steel and concrete (Mode II fracture energy).
 1
1:018 d 3 1 pffiffiffiffi 2
V c ¼ pffiffiffi q6 ð1  qÞ3 ð0:0255fc0 þ 1:24Þbw d
d as
where q is the longitudinal reinforcement ratio; as is shear span of
beam (m); da is maximum aggregate size (mm); Es is modulus of
elasticity of steel (MPa); Vc is the shear force provided by concrete
(kN).
Table 7 compares Vtest/VEQ. for all the aforementioned fracture
mechanics approaches. All of the fracture mechanics approaches
conservatively predict the shear strength of the beams. As shown
in Table 7, the Xu et al. equation predicts the shear strength for
the majority of beams more accurately compared with the Eqs.
(2) and (3). More importantly, this comparison shows that, similar
to the design code shear strength comparisons, ratios (Vtest/VEQ) for
the RAC beams were lower than the CC beams.
5.3. Comparison of test results with the MCFT method
5.3.1. Shear capacity
The MCFT was developed by researchers at the University of
Toronto [31]. Several codes have incorporated simplified versions
of the MCFT including the AASHTO-LRFD-10 and CSA-04. For this
reason, the following section presents the shear strength of the
specimens based on the MCFT method [30].
Table 7 also presents the ratio of Vtest/VMCFT. As shown in Table 7,
in general, the MCFT method underestimates the shear strength of
the beams in this investigation (from 8% to 48% for the CC beams
and 2% to 25% for the RAC beams).
Fig. 4 compares the load–deflection behavior between the
ð2Þ
experiments and the MCFT method. As shown in the figure, plots
based on the MCFT method show good agreement with the exper-
iment results. However, the MCFT method underestimates the
shear strength of the beams tested in this investigation.
5.3.2. Longitudinal reinforcement strains
According to the AASHTO LRFD-10 standard, strain in the longi-
tudinal tension reinforcement can be determined by:
ð3Þ  
jMu j
þ jV u j
dv
es ¼ ð5Þ
E s As
where As is the area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement
(mm2); dv is effective shear depth (mm); Es is modulus of elasticity
of reinforcing bars (MPa); Mu is factored moment at section
ð4Þ
(kN mm); Vu is factored shear force at section (kN); es is the strain
in nonprestressed longitudinal tension reinforcement (mm/mm).
Table 8 presents the tensile strain in the longitudinal tension
reinforcement at the quarter-point of the span (middle of the shear
test region) obtained from both the experiments (strain gauges)
and the AASHTO LRFD-10 equation. As shown in Table 8, the AASH-
TO LRFD-10 equation estimates the strain for both the CC and RAC
beams very well.
5.4. Comparison of test results with shear database

Table 7 The four key parameters that affect concrete contribution to

Comparison of test results with fracture mechanics approaches and the MCFT shear strength include depth of member or size effect (d), shear
method. span to depth ratio (a/d), compressive strength of concrete (fc0 ),
Section Vtest/Va Vtest/Vb Vtest/Vc Vtest/VMCFT and longitudinal reinforcement ratio (q) [26]. To evaluate the ef-
fect of the aforementioned parameters on shear strength of the
CC
NS-4 1 1.20 1.05 1.02 1.08 beams, the results of this study were compared with the wealth
2 1.32 1.16 1.13 1.19 of shear test data available in the literature for CC [26]. Fig. 5 pre-
NS-6 1 1.26 1.23 1.20 1.17 sents the shear stress versus fc0 , q, d, and a/d, respectively. Given the
2 1.51 1.48 1.45 1.48 significant scatter of the database of previous shear test results, it
NS-8 1 1.37 1.45 1.40 1.32
is somewhat difficult to draw definitive conclusions on the current
2 1.38 1.47 1.44 1.33
Ave. 1.34 1.31 1.27 1.26 test values. Nonetheless, visually, Fig. 5 seems to indicate that the
COV (%) 8.1 14.2 14.5 11.3 CC and RAC test results fall within the central portion of the data
RAC and follow the same general trend of the database. Furthermore,
NS-4 1 1.21 1.07 1.06 1.09 statistical analysis (using regression analysis to draw the best fit
2 1.14 1.01 1.00 1.02 and 95% confidence intervals) of the data indicates that the test re-
NS-6 1 1.35 1.33 1.32 1.25
sults fall within a 95% confidence interval of a nonlinear regression
2 1.12 1.10 1.08 1.01
NS-8 1 1.11 1.18 1.18 1.05 curve fit of the database. This result indicates that for the speci-
2 1.14 1.21 1.19 1.08 mens tested, the RAC’s shear strength is slightly lower than the
Ave. 1.18 1.15 1.14 1.08 shear strength of the CC.
COV (%) 7.6 10.0 10.0 8.1 Fig. 5(e) shows normalized shear strength (based on square root
a
Bazant et al. equation [27]. of compressive strength of concrete) versus longitudinal reinforce-
b
Gastebled et al. equation [28]. ment ratio for the beams of this study and the shear database. As
c
Xu et al. equation [29]. mentioned above, since span-to-depth ratio plays a significant role
618 M. Arezoumandi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 612–620

400 400

300 300

Force (kN)

Force (kN)
200 200

100 100

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm)
CC-NS-4-1 RAC-NS-4-1

400 400

300 300
Force (kN)

Force (kN)
200 200

100 100

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm)
CC-NS-6-1 RAC-NS-6-1

400 400

300 300
Force (kN)
Force (kN)

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm)
CC-NS-8-1 RAC-NS-8-1
Test MCFT

Fig. 4. Load–deflections of the beams (test and MCFT method).

Table 8
Comparison of longitudinal reinforcement strain from experiment and AASHTO-LRFD-10 equation.*

Section CC RAC
es quarter-point Experiment es quarter-point Equation esEx: es quarter-point Experiment es quarter-point Equation esEx:
esEq: esEq:

NS-4 1 1039 1236 0.84 950 1000 0.95

2 1063 1136 0.94 1123 984 1.14
NS-6 1 1065 1032 1.03 837 872 0.96
2 1105 1064 1.04 790 752 1.05
NS-8 1 860 872 0.99 586 598 0.98
2 858 783 1.10 414 640 0.65
Ave. 0.99 0.95
*
Micro strain.

in the shear strength of beams, Fig. 5(f) shows the normalized
shear strength for the beams of this study with the portion of the
database that had similar span-to-depth ratios of the current study
(span-to-depth ratio ± 5% [2.9–3.4]). Similar to Fig. 5(a–d), it can be
seen from Fig. 5(e) and (f) that the test results of this current study
are also within a 95% confidence interval of a nonlinear regression
curve fit of the shear database and subset of that. As a result, it
would again appear that the RAC beams show slightly lower shear
strength compared with the CC beams.
6. Statistical data analysis
Since there were only 12 beams, a relatively small population,
both parametric and nonparametric statistical tests were per-
formed to evaluate whether there is any statistically significant dif-
ference between the shear strength of the RAC and CC beams. To
compare the shear strength of the CC and RAC beams, the test re-
sults must be adjusted to reflect the different compressive
 M. Arezoumandi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 612–620 619

(a) 5 (b) 5
4 4

Vtest / (bwd)

Vtest / (bwd)
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 0 1 2 3 4 5
f' c ρ (%)

5
(c) (d) 5
4 4 a a
Vtest / (bwd')

Vtest / (bwd')
3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 0 2 4 6 8 10
d (mm) a/d

(e) 0.5 (f) 0.5

0.4 0.4 a a
Vtest / (bwd√φ c)
Vtest / (bwd√φ c)

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
ρ (%) ρ (%)

RAC

Fig. 5. Comparison of test results of this study with shear database [26].

strengths. As mentioned earlier, some provisions use the square
root and others use the cube root of the compressive strength of
concrete to determine the shear strength of beam. Therefore, to
normalize the data for comparison, the shear strengths were di-
vided by the square and cube root of the compressive strengths
of concretes.
6.1. Parametric test
The paired t-test is a statistical technique used to compare two
population means. This test assumes that the differences between
pairs are normally distributed. If this assumption is violated, the
paired t-test may not be the most powerful test. The hypothesis
for the paired t-test is as follows:
 Ho: The means of the normalized shear capacity of the CC is
higher than the RAC beams.
 Ha: Not Ho
The statistical computer program SAS 9.2 was employed to
perform these statistical tests. Both Kolmogorov–Smirnov and
Anderson–Darling tests showed the data – the differences
between the shear capacities of the CC and RAC beams – follows
a normal distribution. Therefore, the paired t-tests could be
performed. The result of the paired t-test showed that the p-values
were 0.924 and 0.952 (>0.05) for the normalized shear
strength based on the square root and cube root of the compressive
strength of concrete, respectively. This confirms the null hypothe-
sis at the 0.05 significance level. In other words, the means of shear
capacity of the CC beams are statistically higher than the RAC
beams.
6.2. Nonparametric test
Unlike the parametric tests, nonparametric tests are referred to
as distribution-free tests. These tests have the advantage of requir-
ing no assumption of normality, and they usually compare medi-
ans rather than means. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is usually
identified as a nonparametric alternative to the paired t-test. The
hypothesis for this test is the same as those for the paired t-test.
The Wilcoxon signed rank test assumes that the distribution of
the difference of pairs is symmetrical. This assumption can be
620 M. Arezoumandi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 53 (2014) 612–620
checked; if the distribution is normal, it is also symmetrical. As
mentioned earlier, the data follows normal distribution and the
Wilcoxon signed ranks test can be used. The p-values for the Wil-
coxon signed rank were 0.957 and 0.953 (>0.05), for normalized
shear strength based on the square root and cube root of the com-
pressive strength of concrete, respectively. Like parametric test,
nonparametric test confirms the null hypothesis at the 0.05 signif-
icance level. Interestingly, the p-values for both parametric and
nonparametric tests are very close to each other. Overall, results
of the statistical data analyses showed that the CC beams had high-
er shear capacity than the RAC beams.
Comparison between average of normalized shear strength for
the CC and RAC beams shows that the CC beams had 12% and
14% higher shear strength compared with the RAC beams based
on square root and cube root of the compressive strength of the
concrete, respectively
7. Conclusions
To compare the shear strength of RAC with CC, 12 full-scale
beams constructed with different longitudinal reinforcement ratios
were tested to failure. Based on the results of this study, the fol-
lowing conclusions are presented:
 In terms of crack morphology, crack progression, and load–
deflection response, the behavior of the RAC and CC beams
was virtually identical.
 In general, for a given standard, the ratios of experimental-to-
code predicted capacity are approximately 12% higher for the
CC compared with the RAC beams with the same amount of lon-
gitudinal reinforcement. This result implies that the existing
design standards may not be applicable to RAC without modifi-
cations to reflect the lower shear capacity.
 Both the RAC and CC test results fall within a 95% confidence
interval of a nonlinear regression curve fit of the CC shear test
database.
 The fracture mechanic approaches underestimate the shear
strength for both the CC and RAC beams, but appear to be
equally applicable to both materials.
 The MCFT method conservatively predicts shear strength for the
CC and RAC beams, although in general offers very good agree-
ment with experimental results.
 Statistical data analysis (both parametric and nonparametric)
showed that the CC beams had higher shear strength compared
with the RAC beams.
 The AASHTO LRFD-10 estimations of the longitudinal tensile
strain of the reinforcements were close to the actual strain for
both the CC and RAC beams.
However, due to the limited nature of the data set regarding as-
pect ratio, mix designs, aggregate type and content, etc. investi-
gated, the researchers recommend further testing to increase the
database of test results.
Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro-
vided by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT)
and the National University Transportation Center at Missouri Uni-
versity of Science and Technology. The conclusions and opinions
expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the official views or policies of the funding
institutions.
References
[1] Malhotra VM. Superplasticized fly ash concrete for structural applications.
Concr Int 1986;8:28–31.
[2] Arezoumandi M, Volz JS, Ortega CA, Myers JJ. Effect of total cementitious
content on shear strength of high-volume fly ash concrete beams. Mater Des
2013;46:301–9.
[3] Arezoumandi M, Volz JS, Myers JJ. Shear behavior of high-volume fly ash
concrete versus conventional concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 2012. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000700.
[4] Arezoumandi M, Wolfe MH, Volz JS. A comparative study of the bond strength
of reinforcing steel in high-volume fly ash concrete and conventional concrete.
Constr Build Mater 2013;40:919–24.
[5] Kikuchi M, Mukai T, Koizumi H. Properties of concrete products containing
recycled aggregate. In: Proc., 2nd int. symp. on demolition and reuse of
concrete and masonry. vol. 2; 1988. p. 595–604.
[6] Maruyama I, Sogo M, Sogabe T, Sato R, Kawai K. Flexural properties of
reinforced recycled concrete beams. In: Internacional RILEM conference on the
use of recycled materials in buildings and structures, Paper No. 315, Barcelona,
Spain; 2004.
[7] Gonzalez-Fonteboa B, Martinez-Abella F. Shear strength of recycled concrete
beams. Constr Build Mater 2007;21(4):887–93.
[8] González-Fonteboa B, Martínez-Abella F, Martínez-Lage I, Eiras-López J.
Structural shear behaviour of recycled concrete with silica fume. Constr
Build Mater 2009;23(11):3406–10.
[9] Choi HB, Yi CK, Cho HH, Kang KI. Experimental study on the shear strength of
recycled aggregate concrete beams. Mag Concr Res 2010;62(2):103–14.
[10] Fathifazl G, Razaqpur AG, Isgor OB, Abbas A, Fournier B, Foo S. Flexural
performance of steel-reinforced recycled concrete beams. ACI Struct J
2009;106(6):858–67.
[11] Schubert S, Hoffmann C, Leemann A, Moser K, Motavalli M. Recycled aggregate
concrete: experimental shear resistance of slabs without shear reinforcement.
Eng Struct 2012;41:490–7.
[12] Xiao J, Xie H, Yang Z. Shear transfer across a crack in recycled aggregate
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2012;42:700–9.
[13] World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) Report (2012).
‘‘Recycling concrete’’ <http://www.wbcsdcement.org/index.php/key-issues/
sustainability-with-concrete/54> (accessed 08.13).
[14] ASTM A615, A615M. Standard specification for deformed and plain carbon-
steel bars for concrete reinforcement. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM; 2009.
p. 6.
[15] American Concrete Institute ACI Committee. Building code requirements for
structural concrete ACI 318-11 and commentary 318R-11. Farmington Hills,
MI: American Concrete Institute; 2011.
[16] ASTM C 39/C 39M. Standard test method for compressive strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM; 2012. p. 7.
[17] ASTM C 496/C 496M. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of
cylindrical concrete. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM; 2011. p. 5.
[18] ASTM C 78/C 78M. Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete
(using simple beam with third-point loading). West Conshohocken
(PA): ASTM; 2010. p. 4.
[19] Collins MP, Kuchma D. How safe are our large, lightly reinforced concrete
beams, slabs, and footings? ACI Struct J 1999;96(4):482–90.
[20] Taylor HPJ. Investigation of the forces carried across cracks in reinforced
concrete beams in shear by interlock of aggregate. Cement and Concrete
Association, London, Technical report 42.447; 1970.
[21] American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 4th ed. Washington, D.C., 2010. p.
5–(72–84).
[22] AS 3600-2009. Concrete structures. Standards Australia, Sydney; 2009. p. 105–
9.
[23] CSA CAN3-A23.3-2004. Design of concrete standards for buildings. Rexdale,
Ontario; 2004. p. 53–61.
[24] European Committee for Standardization. Eurocode No. 2. Design of concrete
structures. Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings. 2005; p. 84–92.
[25] Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Standard specification for concrete structure.
Japanese Society of Civil Engineering No. 15, Tokyo. 2007; p. 154–9.
[26] Reineck KH, Kuchma DA, Kim KS, Marx S. Shear database for reinforced
concrete members without shear reinforcement. ACI Struct J
2003;100(2):240–9.
[27] Bažant ZP, Yu Q. Design against size effect on shear strength of reinforced
concrete beams without stirrups. J Struct Eng ASCE 2005;131(12):1877–85.
[28] Gastebled OJ, May IM. Fracture mechanics model applied to shear failure of
reinforced concrete beams without stirrups. ACI Struct J 2001;98(2):184–90.
[29] Xu S, Zhang X, Reinhardt Hs W. Shear capacity prediction of reinforced
concrete beams without stirrups using fracture mechanics approach. ACI
Struct J 2012;109(5):705–14.
[30] Vecchio FJ, Collin MP. The modified compression field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Struct J 1986;83(2):219–23.
[31] Bentz EC. Sectional analysis of reinforced concrete members. PhD thesis.
University of Toronto, Canada; 2000.