Structural Behavior of Reinforced Reactive Powder Concrete

Tapered Beams
Haider Talib Nimnim1; Ali Talib Jassim2; and Ali Amer Abdul Mohsen3

Abstract: The present study can be divided into five groups following its five goals. The first goal was to check the effect of compres-
sive strength on the structural behavior of tapered and prismatic beams. The second goal was to study the effect of the tensile reinforce-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ment ratio on the structural behavior of reactive powder concrete (RPC) tapered beams. The third goal was to study the influence of the
tapering ratio on the structural behavior of RPC beams. The fourth goal was to study the influence of the shear reinforcement ratio. The
last goal was to check the effect of the tapering direction on the structural behavior of RPC beams. Therefore, nine simply supported
beams were tested under one-point loading action at their midspans. Seven of the beams were tapered [six of them were made with
RPC, and one of them was constructed with a normal concrete (NC)]. The last two beams had rectangular prismatic shapes (one of them
was RPC, and the second was NC). All beams had the same overall length of 2,000 mm, a clear span distance equal to 1,850 mm, and the
same width of 200 mm. The test results show that the tapered beam made with RPC had a superior ultimate load compared with the NC
tapered beam and that the ultimate load increased when the tapering ratio increased. The ultimate load of the tapered beam was also
found to be increased when the longitudinal and shear reinforcement ratio increased. In addition, the ultimate load of the tapered beam
was greater than that of the prismatic beam. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000416. © 2019 American Society of Civil
Engineers.

Introduction nonprismatic beams (Jolly and Vijayan 2016). The RC tapered

Structural designers are constantly looking for new techniques
and ideas that will make their structures more aesthetically and
economically pleasing. Historically, the improvement of struc-
tures has depended strongly on the characteristics of engineering
materials. Thus, a new type of material with excellent properties,
reactive powder concrete (RPC), has been developed. It offers
superior strength, durability, and ductility (Richard and Cheyrezy
1994). Because RPC consists of a high cement content, silica
fume, fine sand (grain-size distribution of 150–600 mm as a sub-
stitution for natural coarse and fine aggregates), and a special
water reducer, it makes it possible to adopt a water–cement ratio
of less than 0.20 and enables the use of special fine fibers
(Richard and Cheyrezy 1994). With RPC beams being tapered,
architects, designers, and structural designers seeking the best
low-weight, high-strength systems are able to create and imple-
ment aesthetic architectural designs. Tapered beams are used
in simply supported beams, continuous bridges, and buildings
(Fig. 1). The RC tapered beams can be defined as those members
that do not have the same cross-sectional properties from one end
to the other. Those having reinforcement over parts of their
lengths and those that do not have a straight axis are known as
1
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., College of Engineering,
Kufa Univ., Najaf 54001, Iraq. Email: hayder.alkhazaali@uokufa.edu.iq
2
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., College of Engineering,
Kufa Univ., Najaf 54001, Iraq. Email: alit.albozwaida@uokufa.edu.iq
3
M.Sc. Student, Civil Engineering Dept., College of Engineering, Kufa
Univ., Najaf 54001, Iraq (corresponding author). Email: aliamerabbd1234@
gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 4, 2018; approved
on November 29, 2018; published online on January 25, 2019. Discussion
period open until June 25, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
beam provides the following advantages compared with prismatic
beams: (1) more efficient use of concrete and steel reinforcement;
(2) reduced weight of the building for a given lateral stiffness; (3)
eased placement of different facilities or types of equipment
(electrical, air conditioning, sewage, etc.); and (4) aesthetic rea-
sons (Tena-Colunga et al. 2008). Although the RC tapered beam
is widely used in current structures, the available codes, such as
ACI 318–14 (ACI 2014) and BS-5400-1 (BSI 1988) do not cover
such types of members; therefore, the designer of the structure
must rely on experience and some judgment (Jolly and Vijayan
2016). This research focused on the examination of beams with
variable parameters to study the effect of these parameters on the
structural behavior, such as the first cracking load, ultimate load,
maximum deflection, and load–midspan deflection.
Literature Review
A brief review of some research related to the current study is pre-
sented in this section.
Sarsam and Ridha (2012) conducted an investigational exami-
nation of the behavior of shear RPC without web reinforcement.
The experimental program included testing 15 simply supported
beams under two action loads. The beams were designed to carry
more flexural strength. The dimensions of the beams were 100

140
1,300 mm. The main parameters were tensile reinforce-
ment ratio (Pw), silica fume content (Sf), steel–fiber ratio (Vf), the
ratio of shear span to effective depth (a:d), and compressive
strength (fcf). The results showed that there were three modes of
failure: shear, shear-compression, and shear-flexural failure.
Also, the ultimate shear load was increased by 132% when the
steel-fiber ratio increased from 0 to 2% with Pw = 0.03%, and it
was increased by 36% as the longitudinal steel ratio increased
from 0.03 to 0.05% with a constant steel–fiber-volume ratio
of 2%.

© ASCE 04019002-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019002

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Details of Beams B3, B4, B5, and B8.

Fig. 1. Reinforced concrete tapered beam. (Image by Haider Talib

Nimnim.)

Table 1. Description of tested beams

Type of Tensile Tapering Shear

Beam concrete reinforcement ratio reinforcement
B1 NC 2/16 1 /10@425
B2 RPC 2/16 1 /10@425
B3 RPC 2/16 2 /10@425
B4 RPC 2/20 2 /10@425
B5 RPC 2/25 2 /10@425
B6 RPC 2/16 1.5 /10@425
B7 RPC 2/25 2 /10@170
B8 NC 2/16 2 /10@425
B9 RPC 2/16 2 /10@425
Fig. 4. Details of Beam B6.

Fig. 2. Details of Beams B1 and B2.

Fig. 5. Details of Beam B7.

Aziz et al. (2016) conducted experimental testing on the shear
behavior of RC tapered beams. Six simply supported beams (five
beams were tapered, and one was a prismatic beam) were tested
under the action of two-point loading. The section of the tapered
beam was kept constant for all beams with a total length of
2,000 mm, a width of 400 mm, and a variable depth from 150 mm at
the tips to 300 mm at the midspan. The main parameters were the
shape of beam, shear reinforcement ratio, and strengthening with
carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP) strips. The beams were
designed to fail in shear and have extra strength in flexural load.
The results showed that the tapered beam had a superior ultimate
load by 12% with more deformation of 42% compared with the
prismatic beam. Also, the ultimate shear load was increased when

© ASCE 04019002-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019002

 the web reinforcement was increased and strengthened by CFRP
strips.
The structural behavior of nonprismatic RPC continuous
beams was investigated by Dawood and Abdulkhaleq (2017). The
experimental work included testing 14 beams (11 nonprismatic and
3 prismatic) that were continuous with two spans under the applied
two-point loading. The main parameters were the type of concrete
(RPC and NC), the presence of a circular opening, tapering ratio,
and type of loading (static and repeated loading). All beams had the
same overall length of 2,440 mm, a width of 125 mm, and variable
depth. The experimental results showed that using RPC instead of
NC led to an increase in the flexural load capacity and shear ultimate
load by 51% and 177%, respectively. The RPC beams were more
ductile than NC beams by 34% and exhibited an increase in the num-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
support at a specified depth in the prismatic section reduced the ulti-
mate load by 18% and led to changing the failure mode from ductile
behavior to brittle behavior.
Experimental Program
Beam Description
In this study, nine simply supported beams were tested to study
the effect of compressive strength, the tapering ratio for both
RPC and NC, tensile reinforcement, shear reinforcement, and
direction of tapering. The tapered beams had a total length of
2,000 mm, a width of 200 mm, and a variable depth of 400 mm in

ber of cracks of 62%. Also, the results showed that as the tapering ra-
tio was increased from 1.33 to 1.59 and 1.87, the ultimate load was
also increased by 7 and 14%, respectively. In addition to that, the
midspan deflection was decreased by 40 and 34%, respectively.
Moreover, the presence of the small opening at the near interior
the middle, except Beam B6, which had 300 mm and was reduced
toward a support of 200 mm. Conversely, the prismatic beam had
an overall length of 2,000 mm, a width of 200 mm, and a constant
depth of 300 mm. The amount of flexural reinforcement was vari-
able; the upper cord was constant for all tested beams (2/10),
whereas the lower cord was constant for all tested beams (2/16).
There was a difference only in Beams B4, B5, and B7, as
presented in Table 1. The shear reinforcement consisted of
/10@425, except Beam B7, which was /10@170. The beams
were tested under one-point loading in the midspan with a clear
span of 1,850 mm. The bearing steel plates were used under the
point loading and above the support to prevent a local failure.

Table 4. Steel bar properties

Nominal diameter (mm) Yield stress (MPa) Ultimate strength (MPa)

10 576 690
16 650 737
20 584 706
25 625 721
Note: The modulus of elasticity for steel bars was assumed as
Fig. 6. Details of Beam B9.
200,000 MPa.

Table 2. Properties of materials used for tested specimens

Description
Material RPC NC
Cement Sulfate-resisting cement type V Sulfate-resisting cement type V
Sand Natural sand (from Al-Najaf region) with maximum size of 600 m m Natural sand (from Al-Najaf region) with maximum size of 4.75 mm
Gravel — Crushed coarse aggregate with a maximum size of 10 mm
Silica fume Gray densified micro-silica fume —
Superplasticizer Sika (Lyndhurst, New Jersey) ViscoCrete 5930 —
Steel fibers Micro straight steel fibers with aspect ratio (L:d) of 65 —
Water Clean tap water Clean tap water

Table 3. Mixing proportions of present study

Silica fumea Steel fiberb Water–cement Superplasticizerd

3
Concrete type Cement (kg/m ) (kg/m3) 3
Sand (kg/m ) Gravel (kg/m )3
(kg/m3) ratio (%)c (%)
RPC 825 275 1,100 — 39 0.18 5
NC 400 — 600 1,000 — 0.4 —
a
Silica fume was used as a replacement material.
b
Percent of mix volume.
c
The water–cement ratio is the percentage of cementitious materials (cement þ silica fume).
d
Superplasticizer is the percentage of cementitious materials (cement þ silica fume).

© ASCE 04019002-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019002

 Table 5. Mechanical properties of hardened NC and RPC These nine tested beams with differing geometry, named from B1
to B9, were as follows:
Concrete type fc0 (MPa) a
fcu (MPa) a
fsp (MPa) a
fr (MPa) a
1. Two prismatic beams
NC 25.3 33.81 2.6 5.5 2. One nonprismatic beam with an inclination angle equal to
RPC 80 81.5 6.6 10.2 6.709˚
a
Each value is an average of three specimens.
3. Six nonprismatic beams with inclination angles equal to
13.240˚
Table 1 provides the details of the tested beams, and a descrip-
tion of beams is presented in Figs. 2–6.
Table 6. Experimental results for the first group of tested beams

Beam Type of concrete fc0 (MPa) Pcr (kN) Pu (kN) Ds (mm) Du (mm)
Materials

B1 NC 25 35 165 5.34 12.6 Many materials were used in the testing of the beams in the current
B2 RPC 80 60 181 5.73 14 study. The properties of these materials are presented in Table 2.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

B3 RPC 80 85 263 7 14
B8 NC 25 50 167 4.7 9.37 Mix Proportions
Note: Pcr = cracking load; Pu = ultimate load; Ds = service deflection All the mix proportions were selected according to previous
(deflection at load of 70% of Pu); and Du = maximum deflection. research and are presented in Table 3.

Reinforcement Details
200 The properties and details of the reinforcement for the tested speci-
180 mens are provided in Table 4.
160
Ultimate Load (kN)

140
120
Experimental Results and Discussion
100
B1
80 Control Specimen Results
60 B2
40 The control specimens were casted and tested to determine the me-
20 chanical properties of the RPC and NC mixtures used to construct
0
the tested beams. The cylinder compressive strength was tested in
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 accordance with ASTM C39-96 (ASTM 1996), and the cube of
Mid Span Deflection (mm) compressive strength was tested in accordance with BS 1881-116
(BSI 1983). The splitting tensile strength was tested in accordance
Fig. 7. Load deflection for Beams B1 and B2. with ASTM C496-11 (ASTM 2011). The flexural strength was
tested in accordance with ASTM C78-75 (ASTM 1975). Table 5
provides the test results of the mechanical properties for NC and
RPC mixes.
300

250
Effect of Compressive Strength
The specimens for the tests of the effect of compressive strength
Ultimate Load (kN)

200
consisted of four beams, B1, B2, B3, and B8. The objective for this
150
group was to study the structural behavior with the use of different
B3 types of concrete. The experimental results show that the use of
100 B8 RPC instead of NC had a significant effect on the first cracking load
because of a high modulus of rupture (fr). In addition, the use of
50 RPC also had an effect on the capacity of the ultimate load. In pris-
matic beams, the experimental results show that Beam B2 exhibited
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
enhanced increased strength, with increases in the first cracking
Mid Span Deflection (mm)
load and the ultimate load capacity of approximately 71 and 10%,
respectively, compared with Beam B1. Also, in nonprismatic
Fig. 8. Load deflection for Beams B3 and B8. beams, using RPC (as in Beam B3) instead of NC (as in Beam B8)
resulted in significant increases in the cracking load and ultimate

Table 7. Experimental results for the second group of tested beams

Beam Tensile reinforcement [Pw (%)] Pcr (kN) Pu (kN) Ds (mm) Du (mm)
B3 2/16 (0.57) 85 263 7 14
B4 2/20 (0.89) 75 329 8 22
B5 2/25 (1.4) 80 400 7 12

© ASCE 04019002-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019002

 load of 70 and 57%, respectively. Moreover, the results show that
the service deflection of Beam B3 was increased by 49% compared
with Beam B8. A summary of the results for this group is provided
in Table 6, and the load–midspan deflection is summarized in Figs.
7 and 8.
Effect of Tensile Reinforcement
The specimens for the tests of the effect of tensile reinforcement
consisted of three RPC tapered beams, B3, B4, and B5, with tensile
ratios of 0.57, 0.89, and 1.4%, respectively. From the experimental
results, as provided in Table 7, it is noted that when the tensile rein-
forcement ratio was increased from 0.57% for Beam B3 to 0.89%
for Beam B4 and 1.4% for Beam B5, the ultimate load increased by
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
25 and 52% for Beams B4 and B5, respectively. This increase in the
ultimate load returns to the fact that the tensile force increases as the
tensile reinforcement ratio increases. Therefore, the resisting bend-
ing moment increases, and this leads to an increase in the ultimate
load. At the service load, the deflection for Beam B3 was 7 mm and
was increased by 14% for Beam B4, whereas for Beam B5, the serv-
ice deflection was 7 mm. In addition to that, the results show a
decrease in deflection of 45 and 63% for Beams B4 and B5, respec-
tively, at the ultimate load of Beam B3, which had a maximum
deflection of 14 mm. A summary of the results of the tested beams
is provided in Table 7, and the load–midspan deflection curves are
presented in Fig. 9.
Effect of Tapering Ratio
The beams in the third group were B2, B3, and B6 for RPC and B1
and B8 for NC. The objective for this group was to examine the
effects of the tapering ratio for RPC and NC beams on the structural
behavior of the tested beams. As provided in Table 8, when the
tapering ratio was increased from 1 to 2, the cracking load increased
by 43 and 42% for the NC and RPC beams, respectively. Also, the
450
400
350
Ultimate Load (kN)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0 capacity. When the direction of tapering was toward the bottom,
0 5 10 15
Mid Span Deflection (mm)
Fig. 9. Load deflection for Beams B3, B4, and B5.
Table 8. Experimental results for the third group of tested beams
Beam Tapering ratio
B2 1 RPC
B6 1.5
B3 2 RPC
B1 1 NC
B8 2 NC
© ASCE
experimental results show that the tapering ratio clearly had a
greater effect on the ultimate load capacity of the RPC beams than
the NC beams. When the tapering ratio was increased from 1 to 2,
the ultimate load increased by 1 and 45% for the NC and RPC
beams, respectively. In addition, as provided in Table 8, when the
tapering ratio was increased from 1 to 1.5 for the RPC beam, the
ultimate load increased by 13%, although Beam B6, which had a
tapering ratio of 1.5, had less concrete compared with Beam B2,
which had a tapering ratio of 1.
Moreover, at the service load, when the tapering ratio was
increased from 1 to 2, the service deflection increased by 22% for
the RPC beams and was decreased by 12% for the NC beams. This
decrease is attributable to the brittle failure of this beam. Also, it can
be observed from Fig. 10 that the maximum deflection of Beam B2
was 14 mm at the ultimate load of 181 kN and was decreased by
54% for B3 and 17% for B6 at the same ultimate load of Beam B2.
A summary of the results for the tested beams is presented in
Table 8, and the load–midspan deflection curves are shown in Figs.
10 and 11.
Effect of Shear Reinforcement
The specimens for the tests of the effect of shear reinforcement
included two beams, B5 and B7, with shear reinforcement ratios of
0.185 and 0.465%, respectively. It can be observed from Table 9
that the increasing transfer steel reinforcement did not affect the first
cracking load but had a significant effect on the ultimate load.
When the shear reinforcement ratio was increased from 0.185% for
Beam B5 to 0.465% for Beam B7, the ultimate load capacity
increased by 12%. This increase in the ultimate load is related to the
fact that the increased shear reinforcement ratio leads to an increase
in the shear-strength capacity of the beam, and as a result of that, the
ultimate load increases. At the service load, the service deflection
was 7 mm for Beam B5 and was increased by 10% for Beam B7.
Also, as provided in Table 9 the maximum deflection of Beam B5
was 12 mm at the ultimate load of 400 kN and was decreased by
13% for Beam B7 at the same ultimate load of Beam B5. A sum-
mary of the results for the tested beams is reported in Table 9, and
the load–midspan deflection curves are shown in Fig. 12.
Effect of Direction of Tapering
The specimens for the tests of the effect of the direction of tapering
B3 included three beams, B2, B3, and B9, having the same concrete
B4
quantity. Beam B2 was prismatic, Beam B3 had a tapering ratio of 2
B5
with the direction of tapering toward the bottom, and Beam B9 had
a tapering ratio of 2 with the direction of tapering toward the top.
The experimental results show that the direction of tapering was a
significant agent in the first cracking load and the ultimate load
20 25
the ultimate load increased by 45% compared with Beam B2.
Conversely, when the direction of tapering was toward the top, the
first crack was not significant, whereas the ultimate load was
increased by 60% in comparison with Beam B2. At the service
Type of concrete Pcr (kN) Pu (kN) Ds (mm) Du (mm)
60 181 5.73 14
RPC 45 204 7.9 19
85 263 7 14
35 165 5.34 12.6
50 167 4.7 9.73
04019002-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019002
 load, the deflection was increased by 22 and 46% for Beams B3 and 500
B9, respectively, compared with Beam B2. Also, the results show 450
that the maximum deflection of Beam B2 was 14 mm at the ultimate 400

Ultimate Load (kN)

load of 181 kN and was decreased by 54 and 45% for Beams B3 and 350
B9, respectively, at the same ultimate load of Beam B2. A summary 300
of the results for the tested beams is provided in Table 10, and the 250
load–midspan deflection curves are shown in Fig. 13. B5
200
150 B7
Crack Patterns 100
50
In general, at the low loading level, the beams were free from any
0
cracks; therefore, all tested specimens behaved in an elastic manner. 0 5 10 15 20
As the load was increased and tensile stress resulted from the Mid Span Deflection (mm)
applied load exceeding the tensile strength of the concrete, cracks
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

were formed. For tapered beams that failed in the flexural or shear Fig. 12. Load deflection for Beams B5 and B7.
mode, the first crack was generated at the bottom face of the beam
near the midspan region (the region of maximum moments and
shear). This is due to the variation of depth (variation of moment of Table 10. Experimental results for the fifth group of tested beams
inertia). New cracks were propagated when the loading level was
Beam Direction of tapering Pcr (kN) Pu (kN) D s (mm) Du (mm)
further increased.
B2 Prismatic 60 181 5.73 14
B3 Top 85 263 7 14
300 B9 Bottom 65 290 8.35 16.5
250
Ultimate Load (kN)

200 350

300
150 B2
Ultimate Load (kN)

250
100 B3
200
B6 B2
50
150
B3
0 100
0 5 10 15 20 25 B9
50
Mid Span Deflection (mm)
0
Fig. 10. Load deflection for Beams B2, B3, and B6. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Mid Span Deflection (mm)

Fig. 13. Load deflection for Beams B2, B3, and B9.
180
160
140 Table 11. Failure modes and number of cracks
Ultimate Load (kN)

120
Beam Failure mode Number of cracks
100
80
B1 S-F with crushing 22
B1
B2 S-F 32
60
B8 B3 F 36
40 B4 F with crushing 48
20 B5 S 25
0 B6 F 60
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 B7 S-F with crushing 46
Mid Span Deflection (mm) B8 S 19
B9 S 40
Fig. 11. Load deflection for Beams B1 and B8.
Note: F = flexural failure mode; and S = shear failure mode.

Table 9. Experimental results for the fourth group of tested beams

Beam Tensile reinforcement Shear reinforcement Pcr (kN) Pu (kN) Ds (mm) Du (mm)
B5 2/25 /10@425 80 400 7 12
B7 2/25 /10@170 75 450 7.73 24

© ASCE 04019002-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019002

 For the beams made with RPC (B2 and B3), the cracks
appeared only at the bottom face, whereas the top face did not suf-
fer from cracks or crushing. This is attributable to the high
strength of the concrete in this beam. Also, it was found that when
the tapered beam was made with RPC, the number of cracks
increased by 89% compared with the tapered beam made with
NC. Thus, the mode of failure was shear–flexural load and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
flexural failure for Beams B2 and B3, respectively. Beams B1 and
B8 were made with NC, and the cracks that propagated at the bot-
tom face and at the top of the beam at the position of the loading
point caused crushing due to the low strength of the concrete for
these beams. For Beam B8 (NC with a tapering ratio of 2), after
propagation of the flexural cracks, the main diagonal crack started
from the support and moved toward the loading point. After the

Fig. 14. Crack patterns and failure mode of Beam B1.

Fig. 15. Crack patterns and failure mode of Beam B2.

Fig. 16. Crack patterns and failure mode of Beam B3.

Fig. 17. Crack patterns and failure mode of Beam B4.

© ASCE 04019002-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019002

 propagation of the diagonal crack, the load increased until the
concrete crushed near the loading point. Thus, the failure mode of
this beam was shear-compressing failure.
The longitudinal reinforcement ratio (P) played a major role in
determining the mode of failure. When the tensile reinforcement
bars were increased from 2/16 for Beam B3 to 2/25 for Beam B5,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a shear crack appeared from the position of the support and moved
toward the top of the beam after the propagation of the flexural
cracks had caused sudden failure and before the flexural cracks
reached to the top of beam. This is attributable to the high tensile ra-
tio used in this beam (2/25), which gave it extra strength in flexural
load, and the inadequate use of shear reinforcement.

Fig. 18. Crack patterns and failure mode of Beam B5.

Fig. 19. Crack patterns and failure mode of Beam B6.

Fig. 20. Crack patterns and failure mode of Beam B7.

Fig. 21. Crack patterns and failure mode of Beam B8.

© ASCE 04019002-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019002

 Fig. 22. Crack patterns and failure mode of Beam B9.
The shear reinforcement ratio was an essential agent in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Iowa State University on 01/25/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
type of mode of failure. When the number of stirrups was
increased from /10@425 for Beam B5 to /10@170 for Beam
B7, the mode of failure changed from shear to shear-flexural
failure, respectively, with an increase in the number of cracks
of 84%.
Also, the direction of tapering was an essential factor in deter-
mining the type of failure. For Beam B9, which had a tapering
direction toward the top, after the applied loads of the flexural crack
propagation at the bottom face and with increased applied loading,
major diagonal shear cracks appeared from the position of the sup-
port toward the loading point, creating a stronger arch on the upper
part and causing a sudden failure mode. This can be attributed to the
inadequate shear reinforcement. Beam B3, conversely, which had a
direction of tapering toward the bottom, failed with ductile behavior
(flexural failure). Table 11 provides the failure mode for all tested
beams, as well as the number of cracks. A summary of the failure
modes for all tested beams is presented in Figs. 14–22.
Conclusions
1. The results show that using RPC instead of NC in simply sup-
ported tapered beams resulted in an increase in the first crack-
ing load and the ultimate load failure of 70 and 57%,
respectively, and an increase in deflection of 40% at the ulti-
mate load of the NC beams.
2. The RPC tapered beam had more ductile behavior than the NC
beams, exhibiting an increase in the number of cracks of 89%.
In addition, the mode of failure changed from a sudden failure
(shear failure) for the NC tapered beams to ductile behavior
(flexural failure) for the RPC tapered beams.
3. Increasing tensile reinforcement bars from 2/16 to 2/25 for
the RPC tapered beams led to an increase in the ultimate load
of 52%, changed the mode of failure from the flexural mode to
the shear failure mode, and resulted in a 31% decrease in the
number of cracks.
4. The experimental results show that with an increase in the
tapering ratio of the RPC beams from 1 to 1.5 and 2, the ulti-
mate load was increased by 13 and 45%, respectively,
although the beam with the tapering ratio of 1.5 had a lesser
amount of concrete than Beam B2. For the NC beams,
increasing the tapering ratio had no significant effect on the
ultimate load.
5. Increasing the shear reinforcement ratio of the tapered RPC
beam led to a 12% increase in the ultimate load. In addition, the
mode of failure was changed from brittle behavior (shear
© ASCE 04019002-9
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2019, 24(2): 04019002
failure) to ductile behavior (flexural failure), and the number of
cracks increased by 84%.
6. The results show that the tapering direction of the RPC beams
was an essential factor in the ultimate load and the mode of fail-
ure. The ultimate load was increased by 45 and 60% for the
beam with the direction of tapering toward the bottom and to-
ward the top, respectively, compared with the prismatic beam.
Also, the results show that the beam with the direction of taper-
ing toward the bottom failed in the flexural mode, whereas the
beam with the tapering toward the top failed in a pure shear
mode.
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). 2014. Building code requirements for
structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318-14. Farmington Hills,
MI: ACI.
ASTM. 1975. Standard test method for flexural strength of concrete
(using simple beam with third-point loading). ASTM C78-75. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 1996. Test method for compressive strength of cylindrical
concrete specimens. ASTM C39-96. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
ASTM. 2011. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylindri-
cal concrete specimens. ASTM C496-11. West Conshohocken, PA:
ASTM.
Aziz, A. H., H. F. Hassan, and F. M. Abdul Razzaq. 2016. “Experimental
study on shear behavior of reinforced self-compacted concrete tapered
beams.” Civ. Environ. Res. 8 (8): 11–22.
BSI (British Standards Institute). 1983. Method for determination of com-
pressive strength of concrete cubes. BS 1881-116. London: BSI.
BSI (British Standards Institute). 1988. Steel, concrete and composite
bridges. General statement. BS 5400-1. London: BSI.
Dawood, M. B., and M. H. Abdulkhaleq. 2017. “Structural behavior of
non-prismatic reactive powder concrete (RPC) continuous members
under effect of static and repeated loads.” Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 8 (1):
800–806.
Jolly, A., and V. Vijayan. 2016. “Structural behavior of reinforced concrete
haunched beam.” Int. J. Innovative Sci. Eng. Technol. 7 (10): 93–97.
Richard, P., and M. H. Cheyrezy. 1994. “Reactive powder concretes with
high ductility and 200-800 N/mm2 compressive strength.” ACI Spec.
Publ. 144 (24): 507–518.
Sarsam, K. F., and M. M. Ridha. 2012. “Experimental investigation of
shear-critical reactive powder concrete beams without web reinforce-
ment.” Eng. Tech. J. 30 (17): 2999–3022.
Tena-Colunga, A., H. I. Archundia-Aranda, and O. M. González-Cuevas.
2008. “Behavior of reinforced concrete haunched beams subjected to
static shear loading.” Eng. Struct. 30 (2): 478–492. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.engstruct.2007.04.017.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.