See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282424738

Effect of Recycled Concrete Aggregate Replacement Level on Shear Strength of

Reinforced Concrete Beams

Article  in  Aci Materials Journal · August 2015

DOI: 10.14359/51687766

CITATIONS READS
15 1,133

4 authors, including:

Mahdi Arezoumandi Jeffery S. Volz

Missouri University of Science and Technology University of Oklahoma
39 PUBLICATIONS   445 CITATIONS    98 PUBLICATIONS   785 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kamal H. Khayat
Missouri University of Science and Technology
460 PUBLICATIONS   6,568 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Fiber-Reinforced Self-Consolidating Concrete for Repair of Bridge Sub-Structures and Fiber-Reinforced Super-Workable Concrete for Infrastructure Construction View project

Enhancement of microstructure of UHPC View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kamal H. Khayat on 19 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI Materials JOURNALTECHNICAL PAPER
Title No. 112-M53
Effect of Recycled Concrete Aggregate Replacement Level
on Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams
by Mahdi Arezoumandi, Jonathan Drury, Jeffery S. Volz, and Kamal H. Khayat
An experimental investigation was conducted to study the mechan-
ical properties and shear strength of full-scale beams constructed
with recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). This study included two
RCA mixtures and one conventional concrete (CC) mixture. The
two RCA mixtures are different in the amount of RCA replacement,
with one mixture replacing 50% of the virgin aggregate with RCA
(RAC50) and the other replacing 100% (RAC100). This experi-
mental program consisted of 18 beams with three different longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratios. The experimental shear strengths of the
beams were compared with the shear provisions of both U.S. and
international design codes. Furthermore, the shear strengths of the
beams were evaluated based on fracture mechanics approaches,
Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT), and a shear data-
base of CC specimens. In addition, statistical data analyses were
performed to evaluate whether there is any statistically significant
difference between the shear strength of the recycled-aggregate
concrete (RAC) and CC beams.
Results of this study show that the RAC100 has 11% lower shear
strength, on average, compared with the RAC50 and CC beams;
however, the RAC50 and CC beams showed similar shear resis-
tance. The decrease in basic mechanical properties (splitting tensile
strength, flexural strength, and fracture energy) for the RAC paral-
lels the decrease in full-scale shear behavior and can be used as a
predictor in mixtures containing recycled concrete as aggregate.
Keywords: beam(s); mechanical properties; recycled aggregate; shear strength.
INTRODUCTION
Sustainability is at the forefront of our society. It helps
keep the environment clean by reducing the consumption
of nonrenewable natural resources. Concrete—the most
consumed man-made material in the world—uses a signif-
icant amount of nonrenewable resources. The demand for
concrete is expected to grow to approximately 18 billion
tons (19.8 billion tonnes) per year by 2050.1 As a result,
numerous researchers have investigated the use of recycled
materials in the production of concrete such as fly ash2-4
recycled aggregate.5-11
The Federal Highway Administration estimates that
2 billion tons (2.2 billion tonnes) of new aggregate are
produced each year in the United States.12 This demand is
anticipated to increase to 2.5 billion tons (2.8 billion tonnes)
each year by 2020.12 With such a high demand for new
aggregates, the concern arises of the depletion of the current
sources of natural aggregates and the availability of new
sources. Similarly, the construction waste produced in the
United States is expected to increase. From building demo-
lition alone, the annual production of construction waste is
estimated to be 123 million tons.12 Currently, this waste is
most commonly disposed of in landfills.12
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
To address both the concern of increasing demand for new
aggregates and increasing production of waste, many U.S.
states have begun to recognize that a more sustainable solu-
tion exists in recycling waste concrete for use as aggregate
in new concrete, or recycled concrete aggregates (RCAs).
Comprehensive research has been done on both the fresh
and hardened properties of recycled-aggregate concrete
(RAC), but relatively limited research has been performed on
the structural behavior of RAC. Early research on structural
performance of RAC was published in Japan.5 Maruyama
et al.6 tested beams with different longitudinal reinforce-
ment ratios that ranged between 2.4 and 4.2%. They reported
similar crack patterns and failure modes for both the conven-
tional concrete (CC) and RAC beams; however, the RAC
beams showed 10 to 20% lower shear strength compared
with the CC beams for beams with 50 to 100% RCA replace-
ment instead of virgin aggregate.
González-Fonteboa and Martinez-Abella7 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.
Choi et al.8 evaluated the shear strength of 20 reinforced
concrete beams with different span-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 higher RCA replace-
ment ratio led to lower shear strength.
Fathifazl et al.9 used the equivalent mortar volume (EMV)
method for their mixture designs. They used both limestone
(63.5% recycled aggregate replacement) and river gravel
(74.3% recycled aggregate replacement) as a coarse aggre-
gate for their mixture designs. They reported higher shear
strength for the RAC beams.
Schubert et al.10 studied behavior of 14 slabs with 100%
recycled coarse aggregate and reported that RAC slabs can
be designed using the same design equations as for CC.
Xiao et al.11 tested 32 shear pushoff 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
ACI Materials Journal, V. 112, No. 4, July-August 2015.
MS No. M-2014-065, doi: 10.14359/51687766, received February 24, 2014, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2015, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
559
Fig. 1—Load pattern, cross sections, and location of strain gauges on test beams. (Note: 1 ft = 305 mm.)
performance across cracks between the RAC and CC speci- Table 1—Aggregate properties
mens. They also concluded that recycled aggregate replace- Property CC RCA
ment up to 30% did not affect ultimate shear load, but for
Bulk specific gravity, oven-dry 2.72 2.35
higher percentages of RCA replacement, the ultimate shear
load decreased. Dry-rodded unit weight, lb/ft 3
99.84 89.86
Absorption, % 0.98 4.56
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE LA abrasion, % loss 43 41
Based on a review of the existing literature, there is a lack
of full-scale shear testing of RAC specimens. Without this Note: 1 lb/ft3 =16 kg/m3.

background, there is no quantitative basis for safely imple- Table 2—Mixture designs (per yd3)
menting RCA in structural design. Consequently, the authors
developed a testing plan to evaluate the shear strength of CC RAC50 RAC100
RAC specimens as a function of the percentage of recycled Cement (Type I), lb 535 535 535
concrete aggregate replacement level. w/cm 0.40 0.40 0.40
Natural coarse aggregate, lb 1958 979 —
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
Test beam design Recycled coarse aggregate, lb — 846 1650
Eighteen beams (six beams for each concrete mixture) Fine aggregate, lb 1253 1253 1442
were constructed without shear reinforcement and with HRWR, fl oz. 55 50 42
three different longitudinal reinforcement ratios (1.3, 2.0,
AE, fl oz. 20 14 7
and 2.7%), and were designed to preclude flexural failure
and satisfy the minimum and maximum longitudinal rein- Notes: 1 lb = 0.454 kg; 1 fl oz. = 29.6 mL.
forcement requirements of ACI 318-11.13 All of the beams
worth noting that the RAC mixtures, because of the high
tested in this program had a rectangular cross section with a
absorption of recycled aggregate, lost the slump much more
width of 12 in. (300 mm), a height of 18 in. (460 mm), and
quickly than the CC specimens. The Los Angeles abrasion
shear span-depth ratios of 3.0 or greater (Fig. 1). The beam
test results were virtually identical and the RCA contained
designation included a combination of letters and numbers:
46.1% residual mortar (by mass). The RAC mixtures used
NS stands for no stirrups, and the numbers 4, 6, and 8 indi-
50% and 100% replacement (by volume) of virgin coarse
cate the number of No. 7 (22 mm) longitudinal reinforce-
aggregate with RCA and are subsequently referred to as
ment bars within the tension area of the beam section. For
RAC50 and RAC100, respectively.
example, NS-6 indicates a beam with no stirrups and six
The longitudinal and shear reinforcement steel consisted
No. 7 (22 mm) bars within the bottom of the beam.
of ASTM A615-12,14 Grade 60 (414 MPa) material. All of
the reinforcing bars were from the same heat of steel, used
Materials and mixture proportions
the same deformation pattern, and met the requirements of
The CC mixture consisted of ASTM Type I portland
ASTM A615-12.
cement, crushed limestone with a maximum nominal aggre-
The concrete mixtures with a target compressive strength
gate size of 1 in. (25 mm) from the Potosi quarry (Potosi,
of 5000 psi (35 MPa) were delivered by a local concrete
MO), and natural sand from Missouri River Sand (Jefferson
supplier (Rolla, MO, and Norman, OK). The purpose of
City, MO).
using the concrete supplier was to validate the RAC concept
This mixture design was used to construct control speci-
in actual concrete production runs. The mixture proportions
mens to serve as baseline comparisons to the RAC mixture,
and the fresh and hardened properties of both the CC and
and will also serve as parent material for the RCA source.
RAC mixtures are given in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
The resulting concrete was ground at 28 days of age into
aggregate with a maximum nominal aggregate size of 1 in.
Fabrication and curing of test specimens
(25 mm). Test results for the coarse aggregate used in the
Specimens were constructed and tested in the Structural
CC mixture design as well as the resulting RAC are shown
Engineering High-Bay Research Laboratory (SERL) at
in Table 1. As expected, the RCA had lower specific gravity
Missouri University of Science and Technology (CC and
and unit weight and considerably higher absorption. It is
RAC100 specimens) or the Donald G. Fears Structural

560 ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015

Table 3—Fresh and hardened concrete properties
CC RAC50 RAC100
Property 1 2 1 2 1 2
Slump, in. 5.5 8.0 6.5 6.0 8.0 5.0
Air content, % 8.5 9.0 8 6.5 6.5 5.0
Unit weight, lb/ft 3
145.4 146.2 139.8 141.2 136.0 138.7
Compressive strength , psi
*
5400 4950 4650 5150 4350 4950
Modulus of elasticity, ksi 5000 4700 4200 4500 3800 4000
Split cylinder strength*, psi 505 430 420 440 370 385
Flexural strength , psi
†
500 420 425 450 410 400
Fracture energy , lb/in.
‡
0.82 0.78 0.71 0.79 0.57 0.60

Values represent average of three cylinders (ASTM C39-12, ASTM C469-10, and C496-11).
*

Values represent average of three beams (ASTM C78-10).

†

Values represent average of four notched beams. (Beams measured 6 x 6 x 24 in. with a span length of 18 in. and notch with a depth of 1.5 in. and a thickness of 0.25 in.)
‡

Notes: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 lb/ft3 =16 kg/m3; 1 psi = 0.00689 MPa; 1 lb/in. = 175.1 N/m.

Engineering Laboratory at the University of Oklahoma
(RAC50 specimens). After casting, the beam specimens
and the quality control/quality assurance companion cylin-
ders (ASTM C39-12,15 C469-10,16 and C496-1117) and beams
(ASTM C78-1018) were covered with both wet burlap and a
plastic sheet. All of the beams and companion cylinders were
moist-cured for 3 days and, after formwork removal, were
stored in a semi-controlled environment with a temperature
range of 18 to 24°C (64.4 to 75.2°F) and a relative humidity
range of 30 to 50% until they were tested at an age of 28 days.
Shear test setup and procedure
A load frame was assembled and equipped with two
110 kip (490 kN), servo-hydraulic actuators intended to
apply the two point loads to the beams. The load was applied
in a displacement control method at a rate of 0.02 in./min.
(0.50 mm/min.). The shear beams were supported on a
roller and a pin support, 1 ft (300 mm) from each end of the
beam, creating a four-point loading situation with the two
actuators. Linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs)
and strain gauges were used to measure the deflection at
the beam center and strain in longitudinal reinforcement.
The strain gauges were installed on the lower layer of the
bottom longitudinal reinforcement at midspan (maximum
flexural moment location) and quarter point along the span
(middle of the shear test region). Figure 1 shows both the
beam loading pattern and the location of the strain gauges.
During the test, any cracks that formed on the surface of
the beam were marked at load increments of approximately
5 kip (22 kN), and the deformation was monitored until the
beam reached failure.
SHEAR TEST RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION
General behavior (cracking and failure mode)
Table 4 summarizes the compressive strength at time of
testing, shear force at failure, Vtest, as well as Vtest/Vcode for
the following codes: ACI 318-11, AASHTO LRFD-10,19
AS 3600-09,20 Eurocode 2-05,21 and JSCE-07.22
In terms of crack morphology, crack progression, and
load-deflection response, the behavior of the CC, RAC50, and
RAC100 beams were similar to each other. All of the beams
failed in shear and it occurred when the inclined flexure-shear
crack penetrated to the compression zone of the beam near the
loading plate, as observed in Fig. 2. None of the longitudinal
reinforcement reached yield at failure, as expected, based
upon data collected from the attached strain gauges.
Figure 3 shows the load-deflection behavior for the beams
with different longitudinal reinforcement ratios (the deflec-
tion 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 longitu-
dinal reinforcement had a higher shear capacity, which can
be attributed to a combination of additional dowel action,23
tighter shear cracks (and, thus, an increase in aggregate
interlock), and a larger concrete compression zone due to a
downward shift of the neutral axis. Although after Point A,
the RAC50 and RAC100 showed flatter slopes compared
with the CC beams (it was more evident for the beams with
a higher longitudinal reinforcement ratio), which can be
attributed to the lower modulus of elasticity of the RAC50
and RAC100 mixtures compared with the CC mixtures.
Comparison of test results with shear provisions
of selected codes
In the following section, the experimental shear strengths of
the beams are compared with the shear provisions of the selected
standards. Table 4 presents the ratio of experimental-predicted
to code-predicted capacity (Vtest/Vcode) for each of the selected
design standards. In general, for a given standard, the ratios for
the RAC100 beams are lower than the CC and RAC50 beams
with the same amount of longitudinal reinforcement.
The shear provisions of AASHTO LRFD-10, AS 3600-09,
and Eurocode 2-05 are unconservative for most of the
RAC100 beams. Overall, the ratios range from 0.82 to 1.54
and 0.85 to 1.68 for the CC and RAC50, respectively. For
the RAC100 beams, the ratios range from 0.78 to 1.27.
The shear provisions of AS 3600-09 and JSCE-07 have the
lowest coefficient of variation (COV) and ACI 318-11 has

ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015 561

Table 4—Test results summary and Vtest/Vcode for selected codes
Section psi V*test, kip AASHTO ACI AS-3600 Eurocode 2 JSCE
1 5400 27.20 0.82 0.98 0.97 0.90 1.09
NS-4
2 4950 29.20 0.95 1.10 1.07 0.99 1.21
1 5400 32.20 0.94 1.24 1.02 0.96 1.16
NS-6
2 4950 37.50 1.23 1.51 1.23 1.15 1.39
CC
1 5400 39.00 1.11 1.50 1.12 1.16 1.28
NS-8
2 4950 38.40 1.13 1.54 1.14 1.17 1.29
Average 1.03 1.31 1.09 1.05 1.24
COV, % 14.7 18.2 8.4 11.5 8.5
1 4650 26.4 0.91 1.10 1.06 0.98 1.20
NS-4
2 5150 25.1 0.85 1.00 0.97 0.90 1.10
1 4650 34.0 1.16 1.49 1.20 1.12 1.36
NS-6
2 5150 33.4 1.13 1.39 1.14 1.06 1.29
RAC50
1 4650 38.6 1.22 1.68 1.23 1.27 1.39
NS-8
2 5150 37.9 1.19 1.56 1.16 1.20 1.32
Average 1.08 1.37 1.13 1.09 1.28
COV, % 14.5 19.5 8.4 12.5 8.6
1 4350 25.80 0.85 1.04 0.99 0.91 1.11
NS-4
2 4950 25.40 0.78 0.96 0.93 0.86 1.05
1 4350 32.20 1.05 1.38 1.10 1.03 1.25
NS-6
2 4950 27.90 0.81 1.12 0.91 0.85 1.04
RAC100
1 4350 29.50 0.84 1.27 0.92 0.94 1.04
NS-8
2 4950 31.50 0.86 1.27 0.94 0.97 1.06
Average 0.87 1.17 0.96 0.93 1.09
COV, % 11 13.6 7.4 7.2 7.5

Includes part of load frame not registered by the load cells (2 kip) and also beam self-weight at a distance d from the interior face of support plate.
*

Notes: 1 psi = 0.00689 MPa; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.

the highest COV. The ACI 318-11 and AASHTO LRFD-10 (Eq. (2)) based on the fracture energy for splitting tensile
show the most and least conservative results for the beams crack propagation that releases longitudinal reinforcement
of this study, respectively. With regard to the ratios that fell from surrounding concrete (Mode I fracture energy). More
below 1.0—an unconservative result—it is important to note recently, Xu et al.27 proposed Eq. (3) based on the required
that the majority of standards do not allow sections without fracture energy to release interface bond resistance between
stirrups unless the factored shear force is significantly less the steel and concrete (Mode II fracture energy).
than the concrete capacity in shear. This result has also been
reported by other researchers.24  d f c′
The lower shear strength of the RAC100 beams may be Vc = 10ρ3/ 8 1 +  bw d (1)
 a s
d
ascribed to microcrack formation in the interfacial transition 1+
f c′ 2/3 3800 d a
zone (ITZ) because there are two types of ITZ in the RAC
beams (ITZ between virgin aggregate and residual mortar
1/ 3
in RCA and also ITZ between residual mortar and fresh 1.109  d 
( )
2/3
Vc = ρ1/ 6 1 − ρ f c′ 0.35 Es bw d (N·m) (2)
mortar) compared with only ITZ (between virgin aggregate d  as 
and fresh mortar) in the CC beams.
1/ 3
1.018  d 
Comparison of test results with fracture
( )
2/3
Vc = ρ1/ 6 1 − ρ (0.0255 fc′+ 1.24) bw d (3)
mechanics approaches d  as 
Some researchers25-27 have used fracture mechanics
approaches to predict the shear strength of reinforced concrete
Figure 4 compares Vtest/VEq for all the aforementioned frac-
members without stirrups. Bažant and Yu25 proposed Eq. (1)
ture mechanics approaches. All of the fracture mechanics
for shear strength of reinforced concrete members without
approaches conservatively predict the shear strength of the
stirrups. Gastebled and May26 presented an analytical model
beams. As shown in Fig. 4, the ratios (Vtest/VEq) for Bažant

562 ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015

Fig. 2—Crack patterns of beams on shear failure.
and Yu, Gastebled and May, and Xu et al. equations range
from 1.11 to 1.51, 1.01 to 1.55, and 1.00 to 1.54, respectively.
Furthermore, this comparison shows that, similar to the
design code shear strength comparisons, the ratios (Vtest/VEq)
for the majority of RAC100 beams are lower than those for
the RAC50 and CC beams. More importantly, it seems that
the fracture mechanics approaches are applicable for RAC
beams as well.
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
Comparison of test results with MCFT method
The Modified Compression Field Theory (MCFT) was
developed by researchers at the University of Toronto.28
Several codes have incorporated simplified versions of the
MCFT including the AASHTO-LRFD-10 and CSA-04.29
For this reason, the following section presents the shear
strength of the specimens based on the MCFT method.
Figure 4 shows that, in general, the MCFT method under-
estimates the shear strength of the beams in this investigation
(from 8% to 48%, 4% to 43%, and 2% to 25% for the CC,
RAC50, and RAC100 beams, respectively). Similar to both
563
Fig. 3—Load-deflections of beams. (Notes: 1 in. = 25.4 mm; 1 kip = 4.448 kN.)
Fig. 4—Vtest/Vcode for fracture mechanics approaches and
MCFT method.
shear provisions of the codes and the fracture mechanics
approaches, the MCFT method shows lower ratios
(Vtest/VEq) for the RAC100 beams compared with the CC and
RAC50 beams.
Comparison of test results with shear database
The four key parameters that affect concrete contribution
to shear strength include depth of member or size effect
(d), shear span-depth ratio (a/d), compressive strength of
concrete (fc′), and longitudinal reinforcement ratio (ρ).30
To evaluate the effect of the aforementioned parameters
on shear strength of the beams, the results of this study are
compared with the wealth of shear test data available in the
literature for CC.30
Figure 5 presents the shear stress versus fc′, ρ, d, and a/d,
respectively. Given the significant scatter of the database of
564
Fig. 5—Shear strength versus longitudinal reinforcement
ratio; results from literature30 and test results of this study.
previous shear test results, it is somewhat difficult to draw
definitive conclusions on the current test values. Nonethe-
less, visually, Fig. 5 seems to indicate that the CC and RAC
test results fall within the central portion of the data and
follow the same general trend of the database. Furthermore,
statistical analysis (using regression analysis to draw the
best-fit and 95% confidence intervals) of the data indicates
that the test results fall within a 95% confidence interval of
a nonlinear regression curve fit of the database. This result
indicates that for the beams tested, the RAC100 beams shear
strength is slightly lower than the shear strength of the CC
and RAC50 (especially in Fig. 5(a) and (b)).
Material properties test results and comparison
with shear behavior
Previous research31 showed that splitting tensile strength,
flexural strength, and fracture energy are important param-
eters affecting shear strength of concrete. For this reason,
the following section compares the relationship between
these parameters and shear strengths for the three mixtures
studied in this investigation. To compare the shear strengths
of the CC and RAC beams, the test results must be adjusted
to reflect the different compressive strengths. ACI 318-11
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
Fig. 6—Comparison of mechanical properties and shear strengths of CC and RAC beams.
provisions use the square root of the compressive strength of
concrete to determine the splitting tensile strength (Eq. (4)),
flexural strength (Eq. (5)), and shear strength (Eq. (6)) of
beams. In terms of fracture energy, Bažant and Becq-
Giraudon,32 JSCE-07, and CEB-FIP33 Model Code 2010
equations (Eq. (7) through Eq. (9)) use 0.46, 0.33, and 0.18
as a power of the compressive strength of concrete, respec-
tively, to calculate the fracture energy of concrete. There-
fore, to normalize the data for comparison, the splitting
tensile strengths, flexural strengths, and shear strengths were
divided by the square root of the compressive strengths of
the respective concretes; however, fracture energies were
divided by the compressive strengths to the corresponding
powers of the Bažant,32 JSCE-07, and CEB-FIP Model Code
2010 equations.
fct = 6.7√fc′ (4)
fr = 7.5√fc′ (5)
V = 2 f c′bw d (6)
0.46 0.22 −0.30
 f′   da   w
GF = 2.5α o  c  1 + 11.27    (7)
 0.051 c
GF = 10dmax0.33fck0.33 (8)
GF = fcm0.18 (9)
Figure 6 offers a comparison of the splitting tensile strength,
flexural strength, fracture energy, and shear strength for the
three different concrete mixtures tested in this study. For the
RAC50 test beams, the splitting tensile strength, flexural
strength, and fracture energy decreased between 2% and 5%
compared to the CC, with the shear strength of the RAC50
specimens experiencing a decrease of only 1%. However, for
the RAC100 test beams, the splitting tensile strength, flex-
ural strength, and fracture energy decreased between 7% and
25% compared to the CC, with a corresponding reduction in
shear strength of 11%. In other words, the RAC50 mixture
exhibited a slight decrease in basic mechanical properties
and a corresponding slight decrease in shear capacity, while
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
the RAC100 mixture exhibited a larger decrease in basic
mechanical properties and a corresponding larger decrease
in shear strength.
Comparison of longitudinal reinforcement strains
from test results with AASHTO LRFD equation
According to the AASHTO LRFD-10 standard, strain in
the longitudinal tension reinforcement can be determined by
 Mu 
 d + Vu 
 v 
εs = (10)
Es As
Table 5 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 5, the AASHTO LRFD-10 equation estimates the
strain for both the CC and RAC50 beams very well, but
it overestimates the strain around 5% on average for the
RAC100 beams.
STATISTICAL DATA ANALYSIS
Statistical tests were used to evaluate whether there is any
statistically significant difference between the normalized
shear strengths of the CC and RAC beams. Both parametric
and nonparametric statistical tests were performed. To
compare the shear strength of the CC and RAC beams, the
test results must be adjusted to reflect the different compres-
sive strengths because shear provisions of ACI 318-11,
AASHTO LRFD-10, CSA-04, and JSCE-07 use the square
root of the compressive strength of concrete to determine the
shear strength of beam.
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. As mentioned previously, because the shear strength of
RAC appears lower than that of the CC beams, the following
hypotheses are used for the paired t-test.
565
Table 5—Comparison of longitudinal reinforcement strain from test results with AASHTO LRFD equation
CC RAC50 RAC100
Section εs-Ex εs-Eq εs-Ex/εs-Eq εs-Ex εs-Eq εs-Ex/εs-Eq εs-Ex εs-Eq εs-Ex/εs-Eq
1 1039 1236 0.84 1001 1154 0.87 950 1000 0.95
NS-4
2 1063 1136 0.94 912 973 0.94 1123 984 1.14
1 1065 1032 1.03 1080 1064 1.01 837 872 0.96
NS-6
2 1105 1064 1.04 1095 1087 1.00 790 752 1.05
1 860 872 0.99 897 821 1.09 586 598 0.98
NS-8
2 858 783 1.10 834 768 1.09 414 640 0.65
Average 0.99 1.00 0.95

Ho1: The mean of normalized shear strength of the
RAC100 beams is lower than the RAC50 beams.
Ho2: The mean of normalized shear strength of the
RAC100 beams is lower than the CC beams.
Ho3: The mean of normalized shear strength of the RAC50
beams is equal to the CC beams.
Ha1,2,3: Not Ho
The statistical computer program SAS 9.234 was employed
to perform these statistical tests. Both Kolmogorov-Smirnov
(K-S) and Anderson-Darling (A-D) tests (the K-S and A-D
tests are statistical tests that are used to decide if a sample
comes from a population with a specific distribution and
they are based on the empirical distribution function)
showed that the data—the differences between the normal-
ized shear strengths of the RAC and CC beams—follow a
normal distribution. Therefore, the paired t-tests could be
performed. The results of the paired t-test showed that the
p-values are 0.941, 0.924, and 0.778 (>0.05) for Ho1, Ho2,
and Ho3, respectively. These confirm the null hypotheses at
the 0.05 significance level. In other words, the normalized
shear strengths of the RAC100 beams are lower than the
RAC50 and CC beams, and the normalized shear strengths
of the RAC50 beams are equal to the CC beams.
Nonparametric test
Unlike the parametric tests, nonparametric tests are
referred to as distribution-free tests. These tests have the
advantage of requiring no assumption of normality, and
they usually compare medians rather than means. The
Wilcoxon signed-rank test is usually identified as a nonpara-
metric alternative to the paired t-test (similar to paired t-test
used to compare two population means based on ranking
of differences between two populations). The hypotheses
for this test are 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 checked; if the distribution is normal, it is also symmet-
rical. As mentioned previously, the data follow normal
distribution and the Wilcoxon signed ranks test can be used.
The p-values for the Wilcoxon signed rank are 0.970, 0.957,
and 0.657 (>0.05) for Ho1, Ho2, and Ho3, respectively; those
confirm the null hypotheses at the 0.05 significance level.
Overall, results of the statistical data analyses show that
the normalized shear strength of the RAC100 beams are
lower than that of the RAC50 and CC beams. Furthermore,
no significant difference was observed between the normal-
ized shear strength of the RAC50 and CC beams.
CONCLUSIONS
To evaluate the shear strength of RAC, 18 full-scale beams
without shear reinforcement and constructed with different
longitudinal reinforcement ratios and two different amounts
of RCA replacement were tested to failure. Based on the
results of this study, the following conclusions are presented:
1. In terms of crack morphology, crack progression, and
load-deflection response, the behavior of the RAC100,
RAC50, and CC beams was similar to each other with
only a slight difference in slope of load-deflection graphs
after cracking.
2. In general, for a given standard, the ratios of experimen-
tal-predicted to code-predicted capacity for the RAC100 are
lower than the RAC50 and CC beams with the same amount
of longitudinal reinforcement.
3. The fracture mechanic approaches underestimate the
shear strength for the CC and RAC beams but appear to be
equally applicable to both materials.
4. The MCFT method conservatively predicts shear
strength for the CC and RAC beams, although, in general, it
offers very good agreement.
5. Reductions in the splitting tensile strength, flexural
strength, and fracture energy of the RAC mixtures are
consistent with the decreases in shear strength of the corre-
sponding RAC beams compared to the CC beams.
6. Statistical data analyses (parametric and nonpara-
metric) indicate that the RAC100 beams have lower shear
capacity compared with the CC and RAC50 beams tested in
this investigation.
7. Statistical data analyses (parametric and nonparametric)
indicate that there is no significant difference between
the shear capacity of the RAC50 and CC beams tested in
this investigation.
Author Bios
Mahdi Arezoumandi is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the School of
Civil Engineering and Environmental Science at the University of Okla-
homa, Norman, OK. He is a member of Joint ACI-ASCE Committees 408,
Development and Splicing of Deformed Bars, and 445, Shear and Torsion.
His research interests include structural behavior of sustainable concrete.
Jonathan Drury is a PhD Student in the School of Civil Engineering and
Environmental Science at the University of Oklahoma. He received his BS
and MS from Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, MO.

566 ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015

ACI member Jeffery S. Volz is an Associate Professor in the School of Civil
Engineering and Environmental Science at the University of Oklahoma. He
received his BAE, MS, and PhD from The Pennsylvania State University,
State College, PA. He is a member of ACI Committees 123, Research and
Current Developments; 130, Sustainability of Concrete; 215, Fatigue of
Concrete; and 222, Corrosion of Metals in Concrete; and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 423, Prestressed Concrete. His research interests include dura-
bility, repair, and material improvements of cementitious systems.
Kamal Henri Khayat, FACI, is a Professor of Civil Engineering at Missouri
University of Science and Technology. He is Chair of ACI Committee 237,
Self-Consolidating Concrete, and is a member of ACI Committees 234,
Silica Fume in Concrete; 236, Material Science of Concrete; 238, Work-
ability of Fresh Concrete; and 552, Cementitious Grouting. His research
interests include self-consolidating concrete, high-performance concrete,
rheology of cement-based materials, and concrete repair.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the
Missouri Department of Transportation and the National University Transpor-
tation Center at Missouri University of Science and Technology. The conclu-
sions and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the funding institutions.
NOTATION
As = area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement, mm2
as = shear span of beam, m
bw = web width
d = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of longitu-
dinal tension reinforcement
da = maximum aggregate size, mm
dmax = maximum aggregate size, mm
dv = effective shear depth, mm
Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcing steel, MPa
fck = characteristic compressive cylinder strength of concrete, MPa
fcm = mean compressive strength of concrete, MPa
fc′ = specified compressive strength of concrete for use in design, MPa
Mu = factored moment at section, kN·mm
V = shear strength provided by concrete, kN
Vu = factored shear force at section, kN
α0 = 1 for rounded aggregate and 1.44 for crushed or angular aggregate
εs = strain in nonprestressed longitudinal tension reinforcement,
mm/mm
ρ = longitudinal reinforcement ratio
REFERENCES
1. Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. M., Concrete: Microstructure, Prop-
erties, and Materials, third edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2006, 659 pp.
2. Malhotra, V. M., “Superplasticized Fly Ash Concrete for Structural
Applications,” Concrete International, V. 8, No. 12, Dec. 1986, pp. 28-31.
3. Arezoumandi, M.; Volz, J. S.; Ortega, C. A.; and Myers, J. J., “Effect
of Total Cementitious Content on Shear Strength of High-Volume Fly Ash
Concrete Beams,” Materials & Design, V. 46, 2013, pp. 301-309. doi:
10.1016/j.matdes.2012.10.031
4. Arezoumandi, M.; Wolfe, M. H.; and Volz, J. S., “A Comparative
Study of the Bond Strength of Reinforcing Steel in High-Volume Fly Ash
Concrete and Conventional Concrete,” Construction & Building Materials,
V. 40, 2013, pp. 919-924. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.105
5. Kikuchi, M.; Mukai, T.; and Koizumi, H., “Properties of Concrete
Products Containing Recycled Aggregate,” Second International Sympo-
sium on Demolition and Reuse of Concrete and Masonry, V. 2, 1988,
pp. 595-604.
6. Maruyama, I.; Sogo, M.; Sogabe, T.; Sato, R.; and Kawai, K., “Flex-
ural Properties of Reinforced Recycled Concrete Beams,” International
RILEM Conference on the Use of Recycled Materials in Buildings and
Structures, 2004, Paper No. 315.
7. González-Fonteboa, B., and Martinez-Abella, F., “Shear Strength of
Recycled Concrete Beams,” Construction & Building Materials, V. 21,
No. 4, 2007, pp. 887-893. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.12.018
8. Choi, H. B.; Yi, C. K.; Cho, H. H.; and Kang, K. I., “Experimental
Study on the Shear Strength of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Beams,”
Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 62, No. 2, 2010, pp. 103-114. doi:
10.1680/macr.2008.62.2.103
9. Fathifazl, G.; Razaqpur, A. G.; Isgor, O. B.; Abbas, A.; Fournier,
B.; and Foo, S., “Flexural Performance of Steel-Reinforced Recycled
ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015
Concrete Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2009,
pp. 858-867.
10. Schubert, S.; Hoffmann, C.; Leemann, A.; Moser, K.; and Motavalli,
M., “Recycled Aggregate Concrete: Experimental Shear Resistance of
Slabs without Shear Reinforcement,” Engineering Structures, V. 41, 2012,
pp. 490-497. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.04.006
11. Xiao, J.; Xie, H.; and Yang, Z., “Shear Transfer across a Crack in
Recycled Aggregate Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 42,
No. 5, 2012, pp. 700-709. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2012.02.006
12. FHWA State of the Practice National Review “Transportation Appli-
cations of Recycled Concrete Aggregate,” Federal Highway Administra-
tion, Washington, DC, 2004, 47 pp.
13. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2011, 503 pp.
14. ASTM A615/A615M-12, “Standard Specification for Deformed and
Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM Interna-
tional, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, 6 pp.
15. ASTM C39/C39M-12, “Standard Test Method for Compressive
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012, 7 pp.
16. ASTM C469/C469M-10, “Standard Test Method for Static Modulus
of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression,” ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010, 5 pp.
17. ASTM C496/C496M-11, “Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile
Strength of Cylindrical Concrete,” ASTM International, West Consho-
hocken, PA, 2011, 5 pp.
18. ASTM C78/C78M-10, “Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength
of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading),” ASTM Inter-
national, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010, 4 pp.
19. American Association of State and Highway Transportation Offi-
cials, “AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications,” fourth edition,
Washington, DC, 2010, pp. 5-(72-84).
20. AS 3600, “Concrete Structures,” Standards Australia, Sydney,
Australia, 2009, pp. 105-109.
21. European Committee for Standardization, “Eurocode No. 2: Design
of Concrete Structures. Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings,”
CEN, Brussels, Belgium, 2005, pp. 84-92.
22. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, “Standard Specification for
Concrete Structure,” Japanese Society of Civil Engineering, No. 15, Tokyo,
Japan, 2007, pp. 154-159.
23. Taylor, H. P. J., “Investigation of the Forces Carried across Cracks in
Reinforced Concrete Beams in Shear by Interlock of Aggregate,” Technical
Report 42.447, Cement and Concrete Association, London, UK, 1970, 22 pp.
24. Collins, M. P., and Kuchma, D., “How Safe Are Our Large, Lightly
Reinforced Concrete Beams, Slabs, and Footings?” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug. 1999, pp. 482-490.
25. Bažant, Z. P., and Yu, Q., “Design Against Size Effect on Shear
Strength of Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups: I, Formulation,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 12, 2005, pp. 1877-
1885. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:12(1877)
26. Gastebled, O. J., and May, I. M., “Fracture Mechanics Model
Applied to Shear Failure of Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups,”
ACI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2001, pp. 184-190.
27. Xu, S.; Zhang, X.; and Reinhardt, H. W., “Shear Capacity Prediction
of Reinforced Concrete Beams without Stirrups Using Fracture Mechanics
Approach,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2012,
pp. 705-714.
28. Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., “The Modified Compression Field
Theory for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Journal
Proceedings, V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-223.
29. CSA CAN3-A23, 3-2004, “Design of Concrete Standards for Build-
ings,” Rexdale, ON, Canada, 2004, pp. 53-61.
30. Reineck, K. H.; Kuchma, D. A.; Kim, K. S.; and Marx, S., “Shear
Database for Reinforced Concrete Members without Shear Reinforce-
ment,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2003, pp. 240-249.
31. ACI Committee 445, “Recent Approaches to Shear Design of Struc-
tural Concrete (ACI 445R-99),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1999, 55 pp.
32. Bažant, Z. P., and Becq-Giraudon, E., “Statistical Prediction of Frac-
ture Parameters of Concrete and Implications for Choice of Testing Stan-
dards,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 32, No. 4, 2002, pp. 529-556.
doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(01)00723-2
33. International Federation for Concrete Structures, “CEB-FIP Model
Code 2010,” Bulletin No. 65, V. 1, 2012, p. 120.
34. SAS/STAT® software, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 2009.
567
 Notes:

568 ACI Materials Journal/July-August 2015

View publication stats