Shear capacity of two simple poorly

reinforced deep concrete beams

MSc. Rafael Andrés Sanabria Díaz
r16349@unicamp.dac.br

Universidade Estadual de Campinas

School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urbanism - FEC
Laboratório de Modelagem Estrutural e Monitoração LABMEM
Av. Albert Einstein, 901. Cidade Universitária,
Campinas - SP, Brazil

April 30, 2019

Summary
This report presents the load prediction of two beams for the international contest or-
ganized by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). This contest
was proposed as a celebration of 7th lustrum of the DIANA Users Association. The ob-
jective was to predict the shear failure behavior of two reinforced concrete beams with
both analytical and numerical methods. In this report, the software DIANA was used
to simulate the concrete nonlinear behavior and obtain the numerical response of the
beams. On the other hand, the fib Model Code 2010 and the Critical Shear Crack Theory
proposed by Muttoni were applied as analytical methods. This international contest will
contribute to the improvement of guidelines for nonlinear analysis of concrete elements
and reduce the scatter and some uncertainties in the prediction of load capacity using
nonlinear analysis.
1 Test Set up
The boundary conditions and the reinforcement layout of the two test: H352 and H123
are given in the figure 1. The specimen are simply supported and loaded by a single
point load at 4500 mm from the support, thus in the middle of the span. The point load
was applied by a hydraulic actuator with displacement control. Steel plates with the
dimension of 300×100×10 mm were used to introduce the force at the supports and the
point load. A felt layer was included between the top surface of the beam and the steel
plate, to evenly distribute the load to the rough concrete surface.

4500
P 550 4450
span with stirrups
1200

⌀8-100 ⌀8-300

500 9000 500

10000

H352 H123
2⌀20 2⌀20
1200

⌀8 ⌀8

4⌀20 8⌀25
cover: 25 mm
300 300

Figure 1: Configurations of test specimen: H352 and H123. Units in mm.

The longitudinal reinforcement of the two specimens are H352: 4 φ 25 and H123: 8 φ 25.
The concrete cover of both specimens is 25 mm for the longitudinal reinforcement. All
the rebars are standard ribbed bars with the average yielding strength around 580 MP.
The stirrups are φ 8 ribbed bars. They are placed to make sure shear failure occurs at
the instrumented side and confine the tensile reinforcement at the anchorage zone.

1.1 Material properties

A standard commercial concrete mixture has been used, ordered from the local concrete
plant. The physical properties of the concrete, reinforcement are given in table 1.

1
 Parameter value units
Concrete strength (from 150 mm cube tests), f c,cube 86.9 MPa
Concrete tensile strength
5.7 MPa
(from splitting tests of 150 mm cubes), f ct,spl it
Maximum aggregate size, d a 16 mm
Concrete cover, c 25 mm
Density of concrete, ρ c 23.9 kN/m3
Yield stress reinforcements, f tk 583.9 MPa
Ultimate stress reinforcements, f tk 683.9 MPa
Modulus of elasticity of steel, E s 200 GPa

Table 1: Mean value of the parameters of concrete used in the two specimens.

2 Analytical method
The figure 2 shown a representation of the load configuration of both beams. The load
case 1 correspond to the self-weight:

q = h · b w · ρ c = 1.2 · 0.3 · 23.9 = 8.604 kN/m (1)

Load 2 = Ptest

Load 1 (SW) q = 8.604 kN/m

0,5 9,0 0,5

10,0

Figure 2: Load configurations. Units in m.

The load case 2 is the point load applied in the test. The analytical method is base on the
following assumptions:

• the tensile strength of concrete is ignored,

• a rectangular stress distribution for concrete in compression is assumed, according
to MC2010 [3],
• a perfect-elastic behavior without hardening is assumed for all the bars

The analytical method were carried out to investigate the maximum bending and shear
load capacity. In the former analysis, it is assumed that the failure mechanism of beam
is caused for the crushing of concrete after the yielding of the bottom reinforcement steel.
In the latter one, the shear force resisted by the concrete is evaluated.

2.1 Flexure capacity

The figure 3 represent the stress distribution caused by the bending moment of beam
H352. The following hypotheses are proposed:

2
 • All safety factor are ignored
• Bottom reinforcement yields (σs1 = f y )
• Top reinforcement does not yield (σs2 < f y )

H352 ηfc
x=48.3mm Fc
2⌀20

43
1200 σs1As1

1157
⌀8

σs2As2
4⌀20
300

Figure 3: Stress block for determination of the design moment resistance.

From force equilibrium:

−σs1 · As 1 + σs2 · As 2 − η · λ · x · b w · f c = 0 (2)

ε cu ( x − 43)
− · E s · 628.32 + 583.9 · 1256.64 − λ · x · 300 · (η · 86.9 · 0.85) = 0 (3)
x
where:
ε cu (h) = 2.6 + 35 · ((90 − f c)/100)4
η = 1.0 − ( f c − 50)/200
λ = 0.8 − ( f c − 50)/400
E s = 200 GPa, value assumed
εu = 10h value assumed

solving the equation 3 ⇒ x = 48.3 mm.

Verification of hypotheses:
x x
ε cu = εu · = 10h · = 0.4355h
d2 − x 1157 − x
x − d1 x − 43
εs1 = εu · = 10h · = 0.0125h ⇒ does not yield
d2 − x 1157 − x
From moment equilibrium (calculated around the center of the compression zone):

λ· x d1 − λ · x
µ ¶ µ ¶
M = A s2 · f y · d 2 − − A s1 · E s · εs1
2 2 (4)
M = 1256.64 · 583.9 · (1139.13) − 628.32 · 2.5 · (25.13) = 835.7963kN · m
The value of applied moment in the beam is equals to:

3
 0.52 q 92 q 9P
M L1+L2 = − + + (5)
2 8 4
solving from equation 5 ⇒ P = 332.839 kN.

The flexure capacity of beam H123 is performed in a similar fashion and the load obtained
for that beam was 1067.72 kN.

2.2 Shear capacity

The MC2010 [3] level of approximation III is used to estimate the maximum shear ca-
pacity of both beams. The procedure for the beam H123 is presented below.

The calculations were performed at the critical section for shear, a distance z(= 0.9 d =
1027.8 mm) away from the edge of the loading plate were the longitudinal strain ε x is
highest and the shear strength is the lowest. At this location, the M/V ratio, from the
bending moment and the shear force diagrams, is (4500 -100/2 - 1027.8) = 3422.2 mm,
meaning that for each kN of shear force, there is a corresponding moment of 3.422 kNm.
Assuming a initial value of ε x = 0.001 (longitudinal strain at the mid-depth of the mem-
ber) and not taking into account the shear reinforcement of the right span:

0.4 1300
kv = ·¡
(1 + 1500ε x ) 1000 + 0.7 k d g z
¢
(6)
0. 4 1300
kv = · = 0.0659
(1 + 1500 · 0.001) (1000 + 0.7 · 3 · 1027.8)

where k d g = 48/(16 + d g ). The maximum aggregate size, d g , was assumed as zero due to
the compressive strength of the concrete used. Thus, VRd,c is equals to:

p
VRd,c = k v f ck · b w · z
p (7)
VRd,c = 0.0659 86.9 · 0.85 · 300 · 1027.8 = 174.636 kN

This shear force is associated with a a moment of 174.636 · 3.422 = 597.604 kNm. The
longitudinal mid-depth strain associated to these values is:

M Ed / z + 0.5VEd cot(θ )
εx =
2(E s A s )
(8)
597.604/1027.8 + 0.5(174.636) cot(θ )
εx = = 0.000481
2(200000000 · 0.0039)

where the term 0.5 cot(θ ) is replaced by 1.0.

The value found of ε x is different from the initial assumption of the strain (0.001), so more
iterations are required. Convergence is achieved when the strain calculated is 0.00062
and a shear strength of 225.6964 kN.
The value of the shear resistance is equals to:

4
 VRd = (8.604 · 4.5) kN + P /2 = 225.6964 kN (9)
For the beam H123, P = 373.96 kN. Using the same equations and replacing the respec-
tive values the total load capacity for shear of beam H352 was 223.046 kN.

2.3 Beam resistance loads

The table summarizes the loads P (load case 2) obtained from the analytical method for
both beams. From the comparison of the calculated values is expected to have a failure
governed by shear for both beams.

fib MC 2010 H352 H123

Flexure load P 333.225 1067.72
Shear load P 223.046 373.96
Resistance load P 223.046 373.96

Table 2: Values of beam resistance expressed in terms of applied load P, for each beam.
Units kN.

3 NLFEA
The numerical simulations were performed in the software DIANA version (9.4.4). In
general, the material constitutive model, meshing and solution strategy were base on the
NLFEA Guidelines by Rijkswaterstaat [4].

3.1 Mesh discretization

Plane stress state was assumed for modeling the beams, hence two-dimensional elements
were used for mesh discretization. For concrete and steel plates 8-node membrane ele-
ment (CQ16M) with full Gauss integration scheme (3×3) were used. The average ele-
ment size was 50×50 mm2 . Furthermore, 6-node interface elements (CL12I) were used
between the steel plates and concrete. The reinforcement bars and stirrups are modeled
with embedded elements technique. Bond-slip law was used with beam interface type
(CL18B) for accounts dowel effect of bottom bars. Figure 4 shows the mesh used for the
analysis.

5
 iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 24 APR 2019 11:35:47 H123_MESH

Model: H123_PHASE_1-FINAL-0

Stirrups
Bottom reinforcement
Top reinforcement

Figure 4: Mesh of beam H123.

3.2 Material parameters adopted

The concrete model is based on a total strain fixed crack model. All the properties used
in the simulations are shown in table 3.

Table 3: Constitutive model parameters for concrete for both beams. Units N, mm.

Parameter Value
Total strain based crack model Fixed
Shear retention model Damage
Young’s modulus, E c 43331.6
(initial) Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.2
Tensile curve model Hordijk (1993) [5]
Tensile strength, f ct 5.13
Mode-I tensile fracture energy, G f 0.113
Compressive strength, f c 73.865
Compression model Parabolic
Confinement model Selby and Vecchio (1993) [7]
Compression strength
Vecchio (1986) [8]
reduction due to lateral cracking
Compressive fracture energy, G f c 28

For the load and support steel plates a linear elastic behavior was assumed (E =200 GPa
and ν = 0.3). Futhermore, interface elements were used between the concrete and steel
plates. The mechanical properties of the material used in those interfaces are summa-
rized in table 4.
The model for the reinforcement bars and stirrups is based on hardening plasticity. A
bondslip model based on the cubic function by Dörr [2] was used to define the bond stress
between the concrete and the bottom bars reinforcement. The bond-slip law was also
used to consider the dowel effect, specifying the interface option beam element type. The
mechanical properties of the material used in for reinforcement bars are summarized in
table 5.

6
 Table 4: Interface properties. Units N/mm3 .

Parmeter Value
Normal stiffness in tension, K nntension 0
Normal stiffness in compression, K nncompr 43331.6
Tangential stiffness, K t 43

Table 5: Reinforcement properties. Units N, mm.

Parameter Value
Young’s modulus, E s 200000
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.3
Yield stress, f y 583.9
Ultimate stress f tk 683.9
Yield strain, ε y 0.292%
Ultimate strain ε tk 5%
Yiel criterion type von Mises
Bond-slip model Dörr (1978) [2]
Model parameters constants, c and ∆ u 5.13, 0.06
Stiffness moduli 1000,
interfaces elements, K nn and K tt 812.5
Interface element type beam

3.3 Solution strategy

The analysis was divided in two phases: initially was applied the self-weight of the beam
and then a incremental load was applied through displacement control (the force was
obtained as a reaction). The displacement increment was 0.2 mm for both beams. Secant
(Quase-Newton) method with a maximum of 800 iterations was applied. A tolerance
of 10−4 energy criteria was used to obtain the numerical model response. A Line Search
algorithm was used to improve the convergence performance. The analysis was restricted
to stop if the criteria were not satisfied.

4 Results
4.1 Beam H352
The load-deflection curve is shown in figure 5 and crack patterns at different load levels
are presented in figure 6. In the initial loading stage, a linear behavior was observed
until the load achieved 175 kN (Point A). Then, the load decreased abruptly to 73.8 kN
(Point B) at the stage of crack initiation. According to Cervenka [1] this jump is explained
by the instability of the softening solution in the nearly uniform field of smeared crack
with a sudden strain localization (figure 6b). Hence, a smoother transition is expected in
the experimental test.

7
From point B, the beam had less stiffness behavior with small oscillations in the load
level. In this stage, diagonal cracks developed through the compression struts. The peak
load is achieved at 285 kN (Point C), exhibiting the crack pattern of figure 6c, where diag-
onal cracks propagated toward the load application point. Also, splitting cracks along the
longitudinal bottom reinforcement are identified due to bond-slid model and dowel effect
included in the simulations. The figure 7 shows the stress reinforcement, indicating that
there was not yielding at bottom rebar, therefore bending failure is discarded. After the
peak load was reached, a sudden decrease in the load level is observed and at last, con-
vergence is not achieved at the point D. The crack pattern of this point is shown in figure
6d, in which a full diagonal crack on the left span is observed, with a crack concentration
at the bottom bars.

Analyzing the crack patterns and the stresses at the reinforcement bars, it can be con-
cluded that the beam exhibited a shear failure due to diagonal tension crack and bond
failure at bottom rebar.

300
C

250

200
A D
Load [kN]

150

100

B
50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Midspan displacement [mm]

Figure 5: Load-deflection curve of beam H352.

8
iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 24 APR 2019 21:16:51 H352_CRACK-01

Model: H352_PHASE_02-FINAL
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 8 LOAD: 1.4
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = .228E-2
Min = -.228E-8 .208E-2
.187E-2
.166E-2
.145E-2
.125E-2
.104E-2
.83E-3
.623E-3
.415E-3
.208E-3

(a) Point A. P = 175 kN, u = 1.789 mm.

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 25 APR 2019 16:18:45 H352_POINT_B

Model: H352_PHASE_02-FINAL
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 9 LOAD: 1.6
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = .384 Min = -.112E-1

.348
.312
.277
.241
.205
.169
.133
.967E-1
.607E-1
.248E-1

(b) Point B. P = 73.8 kN, u = 1.989 mm.

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 24 APR 2019 21:14:09 H352_CRACK-02

Model: H352_PHASE_02-FINAL
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 105 LOAD: 20.8
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = 17.5 Min = -.556

15.9
14.3
12.6
11
9.32
7.67
6.03
4.38
2.74
1.09

(c) Point C. P = 285 kN, u = 21.19 mm.

Figure 6: Crack width for different load levels for beam H352. Units in mm

9
 iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 24 APR 2019 21:19:04 H352_CRACK-03

Model: H352_PHASE_02-FINAL
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 108 LOAD: 21.4
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = 37 Min = -1.21

33.5
30.1
26.6
23.1
19.6
16.2
12.7
9.21
5.74
2.27

(d) Point D. Last step (Convergence was not achieved).

Figure 6: Crack width for different load levels for beam H352. Units in mm. (continued)

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 24 APR 2019 21:23:16 H352_VMISES

Model: H352_PHASE_02-FINAL
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 105 LOAD: 20.8
Element VONMISES RE.SXX.G
Calculated from: RE.SXX.G
Max = 796 Min = .139E-3

684
584
484
384
284
184
84

Figure 7: Stress in the reinforcement bars at the peak load. Units in MPa.

10
Finally, table 6 presents the principals results of beam H352 simulation.

Table 6: Summary of the results obtain for the H352 beam simulation

H352 results
ULS level (Peak load) 285 kN
Maximum ULS deflection 21.59 mm
Crack width at 175 kN See figures 6a and 6b
Crack width just before ULS level See figure 8a
Crack width at 175 kN just after ULS level See figure 8b
Shear (with diagonal crack and
Failure mode
bond failure at botton rebar)

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 25 APR 2019 17:41:13 H352_BEFORE

Model: H352_PHASE_02-FINAL
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 104 LOAD: 20.6
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = 17.5 Min = -.555
15.9
14.2
12.6
11
9.31
7.67
6.02
4.38
2.73
1.09

(a) Crack pattern just before peak load (load step 104).

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 25 APR 2019 17:44:05 H352_AFTER

Model: H352_PHASE_02-FINAL
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 106 LOAD: 21
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = 17.7 Min = -.563

16
14.3
12.7
11
9.37
7.72
6.06
4.4
2.75
1.09

(b) Crack pattern just after peak load (load step 106).

Figure 8: Crack width just before and after reach the peak load. Units in mm.

11
4.2 Beam H123
The load-deflection curve and the crack patterns for beam H123 are shown in figures
9 and 10, respectively. Analyzing the results, it can be concluded that it had a similar
failure mode to beam H352. Initially the beam H123 had a linear behavior until reach a
load of 243.9 kN (Point A, also see figure 10a ). Afterwards, a drop in the load level can be
observed in point B, where the flexure cracks propagation began ( figure 10b). From this
point, the load started to increase again with a lower rate in comparison to the initial
stage. This behavior indicates a lower beam stiffness, consequence of the development of
diagonal cracks through the compression struts.
The peak load was reached at 473.2 kN (Point C) with the crack pattern showed in figure
10c. The stress at reinforcement bars is show in the figure 11, indicating that there was
not yielding in the bottom bar. From this point the load level had some oscillations and
the convergence was not achieved at point D, obtaining the crack pattern exhibited in
the figure 10d, in which clear a diagonal crack can be seen on the left span of the beam,
extending also along the bottom rebar.
Analyzing the crack patterns and the stresses at the reinforcement bars, it can be con-
cluded that the beam exhibited a shear failure due to diagonal tension crack and bond
failure at bottom rebar.

500
C

450

400
D
350
Load [kN]

300

A
250

200

150 B

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Midspan displacement [mm]

Figure 9: Load-deflection curve of beam H123.

12
iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 25 APR 2019 22:41:00 H123_POINT_A

Model: H123_PHASE_02-FNAL-0
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 11 LOAD: 2
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = .147E-1
Min = -.525E-7

.134E-1
.12E-1
.107E-1
.935E-2
.801E-2
.668E-2
.534E-2
.401E-2
.267E-2
.134E-2

(a) Point A. P = 243.9 kN, u = 2.373 mm

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 25 APR 2019 22:44:19 H123_CRACK_POINT_B

Model: H123_PHASE_02-FNAL-0
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 12 LOAD: 2.2
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = .319 Min = -.613E-2

.289
.259
.23
.2
.171
.141
.112
.824E-1
.529E-1
.234E-1

(b) Point B. P = 156.5 kN, u = 2.573 mm

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 24 APR 2019 12:57:47 H123_CRACK-02

Model: H123_PHASE_02-FNAL-0
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 62 LOAD: 12.2
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = 2.28 Min = -.767E-1

2.07
1.85
1.64
1.42
1.21
.994
.78
.566
.352
.138

(c) Point C. P = 473.2 kN, u = 12.57 mm

Figure 10: Crack width for different load levels for beam H123.

13
iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 24 APR 2019 13:00:19 H123_CRACK-04

Model: H123_PHASE_02-FNAL-0
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 78 LOAD: 15.4
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = 16.4 Min = -.667

14.8
13.3
11.7
10.2
8.64
7.09
5.54
3.99
2.43
.884

(d) Point D. P = 375.3 kN, u = 15.77 m, last step (convergence was not achieved).

Figure 10: Crack width for different load levels for beam H123. (continued)

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 24 APR 2019 13:11:25 H123_REINF

Model: H123_PHASE_02-FNAL-0
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 77 LOAD: 15.2
Element VONMISES RE.SXX.G
Calculated from: RE.SXX.G
Max = 678 Min = .114E-2

684
584
484
284
184
84

Figure 11: Stress in the reinforcement bars at the peak load. Units in MPa.

Table 7: Summary of the results obtain for the H123 beam simulation

H123 results
ULS level (Peak load) 473.2 kN
Maximum ULS deflection 15.77 mm
Crack width at 175 kN See figure 12a
Crack width just before ULS level See figure 12b
Crack width at 175 kN just after ULS level See figure 12c
Shear (with diagonal crack and
Failure mode
bond failure at botton rebar)

14
 iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 25 APR 2019 22:43:01 H123_CRACK-175KN

Model: H123_PHASE_02-FNAL-0
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 8 LOAD: 1.4
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = .121E-2
Min = -.21E-8

.11E-2
.994E-3
.883E-3
.773E-3
.662E-3
.552E-3
.442E-3
.331E-3
.221E-3
.11E-3

(a) Crack pattern at P = 182.2 kN (load step 8)

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 25 APR 2019 22:45:15 H123_BEFORE

Model: H123_PHASE_02-FNAL-0
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 61 LOAD: 12
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = 2.21 Min = -.744E-1
2
1.8
1.59
1.38
1.17
.965
.757
.549
.341
.133

(b) Crack pattern just after peak load (load step 61)

iDIANA 9.4.4-03 : Univ. de Campinas 25 APR 2019 22:46:36 H123_AFTER

Model: H123_PHASE_02-FNAL-0
Deformation = 20
LC2: Load case 2
Step: 62 LOAD: 12.2
Element PRINC ESTRN PMAX
Calculated from: EL.ECWXG
Max = 2.28 Min = -.767E-1

2.07
1.85
1.64
1.42
1.21
.994
.78
.566
.352
.138

(c) Crack pattern just after peak load (load step 63)

Figure 12: Crack width at approximate 175 kN, just before and after reach the peak load.
Units in mm.

15
5 NLFEA and analytical method comparison
The figure 13 presents the comparison of load-deflection of the beams H352 and H123
and the load prediction using the analytical method. Comparing both curves, can be
seen clearly that the beam H123 as a stiffener behavior, and the beam H352 reached
the failure with a greater maximum displacement. This behavior is consequence of the
different reinforcement ratios provided in each beam. Analyzing the load prediction of
MC2010 [3] it seems that the values are close. For the beam H352 the ratio between the
simulation and the code prediction load was 1.28. On the other hand, for the beam H123
the ratio was 1.27. As a expected a typical level of conservativeness was found for the
load predicted by the code method.

500
473.2 kN
450

400
373.96 kN
350
Total Load P [kN]

300 285 kN

250
223.05 kN
200

150

100

50

5 10 15 20 25

Midspan deection [mm]

MC-2010 predicted load for beam H123

MC-2010 predicted load for beam H352
NLFEA predicted load for beam H123
NLFEA predicted load for beam H352

Figure 13: Comparison between the predicted load of numerical and analytical methods
(Model Code 2010 LoA III).

16
6 Analytical method proposed by Muttoni [6]
Although the code prediction loads and the numerical ones were closed, an alternative
analytical method was also studied. The Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT) proposed by
Muttoni [6] was applied to predict the load for beams H352 and H123. According to this
theory, the shear strength of reinforced concrete members without transverse reinforce-
ment depends on the opening and the roughness of a critical shear crack transferring
shear. The evaluation of the shear strength is calculated through the following analytical
expression:

VR 1 2
p = · (10)
bd f c 6 1 + 120 16ε+dd g

where d g is the maximum aggregate size. For high-strength concrete ( f c > 60 MPa)
should be taken equal to zero.
ε is a reference strain at a depth of 0.6 d from the compression face, which can be derived
as:

M 0.6 d − c
ε= (11)
bd ρ E s ( d − c/3) d − c
where c is the depth of the compression zone:
Ãs !
Es 2E c
c = dρ 1+ −1 (12)
Ec ρEs
Two calculations were performed to investigate the influence of the maximum aggregate
size ( d g = 0 and d g = 16 mm). Substituting the respective values into the equations above
the following results are obtained:

Table 8: Load prediction for beam H352 and H123 according to CSCT. Units kN.

H352 H123
dg = 0 145.62 317.5
d g = 16 mm 233.30 458.28

The results from the table 8 are close to the ones obtained through the numerical simu-
lations, especially the load predicted accounting the maximum aggregate. For the beam
H352, the load predicted value with d g = 16 mm was similar to the one predicted by
MC2010 [3]. On other the hand, for the beam H123, the value predicted by the MC2010 [3]
is close to the average load predicted by the CSCT for the cases d g = 0 and d g = 16 mm.
Without doubt it will be interesting the comparison of these results with the load obtained
in the experimental test.

17
References
[1] V. Cervenka, J. Cervenka, R. Pukl, and T. Sajdlova. Prediction of shear failure of
large beam based on fracture mechanics. In 9th International Conference on Fracture
Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures FraMCoS-9, V. Saouma, J. Bolander
and E. Landis (Eds), Berkeley, California, USA., volume 8, 2016.

[2] K. Dörr. Ein beitrag zur berechnung von stahlbeton-scheiben unter besonderer
berücksichtigung des verbund-verhaltens [ph. d. thesis], 1980.

[3] Fédération Internationale du Béton. Model Code 2010 First Complete Draft. Num-
ber 55. 2010.

[4] M. A. Hendriks, A. de Boer, and B. Belletti. Guidelines for nonlinear finite element
analysis of concrete structures. Rijkswaterstaat Technisch Document (RTD), Rijkswa-
terstaat Centre for Infrastructure, RTD, 1016:2012, 2012.

[5] D. Hordijk and H. Reinhardt. Numerical and experimental investigation into the
fatigue behavior of plain concrete. Experimental mechanics, 33(4):278–285, 1993.

[6] A. Muttoni and M. Fernández Ruiz. Shear strength of members without transverse
reinforcement as function of critical shear crack width. ACI Structural Journal,
2(ARTICLE):163–172, 2008.

[7] R. Selby and F. Vecchio. Three-dimensional constitutive relations for reinforced con-
crete. university of toronto. Department of Civil Engineering, 147:93–02, 1993.

[8] F. J. Vecchio and M. P. Collins. The modified compression-field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J., 83(2):219–231, 1986.

18