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

net/publication/317711320

Effect of Coarse Aggregate Size on the Shear Behavior of Beams without

Shear Reinforcement

Article  in  Aci Structural Journal · September 2017

DOI: 10.14359/51689720

CITATIONS READS

6 897

3 authors:

Weijian Yi Qing Deng

Hunan University Hunan University
187 PUBLICATIONS   1,182 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fujian Tang
Dalian University of Technology
3 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Qing Deng on 27 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title No. 114-S92
Effect of Coarse Aggregate Size on Shear Behavior of
Beams without Shear Reinforcement
by Qing Deng, Wei-Jian Yi, and Fu-Jian Tang
The effect of aggregate size on the shear behavior of reinforced
concrete (RC) beams without shear reinforcement was experimen-
tally investigated in this study. Beams with four coarse maximum
aggregate sizes were manufactured and tested to shear failure,
including 10, 20, 31.5, and 40 mm (0.39, 0.79, 1.24, and 1.58 in.).
Two shear span-depth ratios λ = 2.2 and 3.0 were considered. After
tests, finite element analysis was carried out to simulate the shear
failure process. The results showed that the maximum aggregate
size had no or little effect on the tensile strength of concrete, while
it improved the shear capacity of RC beams. Once cracked, the
normal and tangential displacement between the shear cracks
occurred simultaneously, and the aggregate interlock worked all
the time. Finite element analysis showed the inclined principal
tensile stress within the low-middle part of the web and the tip of
the diagonal cracks had significant influence on the development of
diagonal cracks.
Keywords: aggregate interlock; beams without shear reinforcement; high-
speed photography; maximum aggregate size; nonlinear finite element analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Shear behavior of RC beams has always been a subject of
research due to its complexity and engineering needs. Some
concrete structural members, such as transfer beam or thick
one-way slab, can be designed without shear reinforcement
using the shear design method specified in the ACI Code.1
The concrete contribution items, Vc, of the conventional shear
design method are generally based on the research work on
beams without shear reinforcement. Over half of a century
ago, extensive experimental investigations were carried out
to study the shear behavior of RC beams, and a database of
439 test results was created in 2003. Recently, this database
was expanded to include 1356 shear test results by a joint
ACI-DAfStb Group.2 At the same time, analytical models
have also been proposed such as the modified compressive
field theory,3 critical shear crack theory,4 compressive force
path method,5 plastic theory,6 splitting failure theory,7 and
strain-based shear strength model.8 These analysis methods
were gradually applied in design codes such as CSA
A23.3-04 and fib MC2010 over the past decade.
Despite its complexity, five mechanisms of shear transfer
have been recognized9: shear stress in uncracked compres-
sion zone (the flexural compression zone); interfacial shear
transfer caused by aggregate interlock or crack friction;
dowel action of the longitudinal reinforcing bars; arch
action; and residual tensile stresses transmitted directly
across cracks.
Shear transfer by aggregate interlock or crack friction
plays a significant role in shear capacity of RC beams,
particularly for those beams without shear reinforcement.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
TECHNICAL PAPER
By introducing preset cracks with different widths using
thin metal sheets, Fenwick and Paulay10 observed a drastic
reduction of the shear resistance due to the absence of
aggregate interlock action when the crack width increased.
Taylor11 measured the displacement across the shear cracks
during loading using a delta rosette of strain gauges, and
concluded that the contribution of aggregate interlock to
shear transfer was relatively larger than the other actions.
A numerical model was also developed by Walraven12 to
consider the distribution of aggregate size on the shear stress.
Later, Ulaga13 and Guidotti14 also developed mathematical
models to describe shear behavior of concrete. Sato et al.15
measured the opening and slip of diagonal cracks through
spatially arranged displacement sensors, and found that the
crack opening and slip took place simultaneously for beams
that failed in shear compression (shear span-depth ratio λ =
1.76), and the aggregate interlock action might be related to
the shear span-depth ratio.
Shear failure of RC beams usually occurs suddenly, and
the information at failure, such as critical crack initiation
and propagation, is very important for understanding its
behavior. With the advancement in technology, particu-
larly after the advent of dynamic data acquisition system
and high-speed photography, the failure process such as the
initiation and propagation of shear cracks, and final failure
could be captured. By employing dynamic measurement of
shear crack width, Chana16 observed shear failure initiated
at the intersection of inclined crack and longitudinal rein-
forcing bars for RC beams with large shear span-to-depth
ratios. Sherwood et al.17 and McCain18 also captured the
initiation and propagation of shear cracks using high-speed
photography. Sherwood et al.17 concluded the increase of the
maximum aggregate size had a positive impact on the shear
capacity of beams without stirrups. Muttoni and Thürli-
mann,19 Cavagnis et al.,20 and Campana et al.21 measured the
relative displacement of the two faces across the shear crack,
as well as the strains on the concrete surface using either
high-precision distance measurement device or photogram-
metric technique combined with video image correlation
(VIC) three-dimensional (3-D) system.
In this study, the effect of maximum aggregate size on the
shear resistance of RC beams without shear reinforcement
was experimentally studied. To capture the fracture and
failure processes during shear loading, a high-speed camera
ACI Structural Journal, V. 114, No. 5, September-October 2017.
MS No. S-2016-148.R1, doi: 10.14359/51689720, received November 17, 2016,
and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright ©  2017, 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.
1131
Fig. 1—Beam dimension and shear test setup for: (a) beam series λ = 2.2; (b) beam series λ = 3.0; and (c) strengthening pairs.
(Note: All dimensions are in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
was employed. In addition, finite element analysis using
software ATENA was also carried out and compared with
the experimental results.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Aggregate interlocking plays an important role in the shear
resistance of RC beams without shear reinforcement. Size
of maximum aggregate is one of the important parameters
for effective aggregate interlocking. However, experimental
study regarding the effect of aggregate size on the shear resis-
tance of RC beams without shear reinforcement is limited,
especially for beam with a small shear span-depth ratio. This
paper presents shear test results of 16 RC beams with two
shear span-depth ratios, focusing on the effects of aggregate
size on the shear behavior. The test results give some insight
on the shear design of RC beams without shear reinforcement.
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
Materials and specimens
Two series of RC beams were manufactured and tested in
this study, as shown in Fig. 1, considering two shear span-
depth ratios of λ = 2.2 and λ= 3.0. Beam series λ = 2.2
(Fig.  1(a)) had a length of 2000 mm (78.8 in.) and beam
series λ = 3.0 (Fig. 1(b)) was 2600 mm (102.4 in.) long. The
1132
selection of these two shear span-to-depth ratios is because
Taylor11 and Sherwood17 had already conducted shear tests
to investigate the effect of aggregate size on beams with the
shear span-depth ratio greater than 2.5. The cross section of
these two beams series was the same and had a dimension
of 200 x 400 mm (7.88 x 15.76 in.). Steel bars were China
Standard HRB 400, which has a yield strength of 470.6 MPa
(68.3 psi) and tensile strength of 609.2 MPa (88.4 psi). Three
steel bars with a diameter of 22 mm (0.87 in.) were used
as longitudinal bars, and the concrete cover was 40 mm
(1.58  in.). In addition, three transverse steel bars with a
diameter of 22 mm (0.87 in.) were also used at the two ends
of the beam to prevent local damage during loading test.
For each beam series, four aggregate sizes were considered,
and two beams were manufactured for the same condition.
Therefore, a total of 16 beams were casted and tested.
Concrete was mixed using tap water, Class 42.5 portland
cement, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate. River sand with
a maximum size of 2.0 mm (0.79 in.) and a modulus of fine-
ness of 2.6 was used as fine aggregate. Gravel was used for
coarse aggregates and four maximum aggregate sizes were
considered, including 10, 20, 31.5, and 40 mm (0.39, 0.79,
1.24, and 1.58 in.). To reach the same compressive strength,
trail tests were carried out on concrete cubic specimens
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
and the final mixture proportions corresponding to the four
gravel sizes were finalized and listed in Table 1. The corre-
sponding compressive and tensile strengths for each mixture
were also determined and shown in Table 1. Compressive
strength was measured using concrete cube samples (150 x
150 x 150 mm [5.90 x 5.90 x 5.90 in.]), and the splitting
tensile strength was determined following China Standard.
Test setup and instrumentation
After being air cured for 30 days at room temperature,
shear tests were carried out on these beams using a typical
three-point setup, as shown in Fig. 1(a) and 1(b). The beams
were supported on a steel roller and a steel pin 200 mm
(7.88 in.) from each end of the beam, and the loading point
was in the middle point. To limit the shear failure occurring
on one side of the beam, the other side was strengthened with
different pairs of steel rods and channel steels. The steel rod
had a diameter of 22 mm (0.87 in.), and the dimensions of
the channel steel are shown in Fig. 1(c). For beams with
a length of 2000 mm (78.8 in.), three pairs of steel rods
were applied with a spacing of 200 mm (7.88 in.) (refer
Fig. 2—Layout of LVDTs. (Note: All dimensions are in mm;
1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 3—Schematic illustration of relative displacements between shear crack.15
Table 1—Concrete mixture proportion and strength
Gravel size, mm Water, kg/m3 Cement, kg/m3 Sand, kg/m3
10.0 200 377 638
20.0 180 340 639
31.5 170 321 630
40.0 160 302 620
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
to Fig.  1(a)), while five pairs were used for beams with a
length of 2600 mm (102.4 in.) (Fig. 1(b)).
To record the relative displacement of the two faces
across shear cracks during tests, a grid with a line spacing
of 50 mm (2 in.) was drawn on the front face of each beam.
At the same time, nine linear variable differential trans-
formers (LVDTs) were employed, as shown in Fig. 2. When
there is a relative displacement between the two faces across
a crack, as shown in Fig. 3, the vertical and the tangential
displacements at the crack can be calculated based on the
elongations of the two LVDTs15
l1′ = l1 + wsinθ1 + ∆cosθ1 (1a)
l2′ = l2 + wsinθ2 + ∆cosθ2 (1b)
Based on the readings from the two LVDTs, the normal
displacement w (crack width) and the tangential displace-
ment Δ (crack faces sliding) across the crack are
(l1′ − l1 ) cos θ 2 − (l1′ − l1 ) cos θ1
w= (2a)
sin θ1 cos θ 2 − sin θ 2 cos θ1
(l2′ − l2 ) sin θ 2 − (l2′ − l2 ) sin θ1
∆= (2b)
cos θ1 sin θ 2 − cos θ 2 sin θ1
A pinned-end actuator was used to load the beam. Prior
to concrete cracking, load was applied at a step of 10 kN
(2.25 kip), and it increased to 20 kN (4.5 kip) after cracking.
When the load reached approximately 80% of the estimated
ultimate load, a step of 10 kN (2.25 kip) was used again to
observe the failure process. A high-speed camera with 500
frames per second (fps) was used to capture the initiation
and propagation of diagonal shear cracks during loading. An
Gravel, kg/m3 Compressive strength, MPa Tensile strength, MPa
1185 39.3 ± 3.2 3.04 ± 0.08
1240 40.8 ± 0.1 3.08 ± 0.04
1279 39.6 ± 2.5 3.12 ± 0.06
1318 43.2 ± 1.0 3.33 ± 0.18
1133
Table 2—Shear test results
λ = 2.2 λ = 3.0
Specimen Load, kN ag, mm 10 20 31.5 40 10 20 31.5 40
Pexp 199.0 199.0 212.0 242.3 152.9 158.0 179.7 192.9
No. 1 Vcr 63.0 61.0 81.4 66.7 51.3 62.8 72.8 61.8
Vu 101.5 101.5 108.0 123.2 79.0 81.5 92.4 99.0
Pexp 160.8 201.3 190.1 209.7 150.6 177.5 172.9 190.1
No. 2 Vcr 62.4 66.7 81.5 66.5 66.3 72.8 68.8 61.3
Vu 82.4 102.7 97.1 106.9 77.8 91.3 89.0 97.6
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 MPa = 0.0145 ksi.

Fig. 4—Failure crack patterns for: (a) beam series λ = 2.2; and (b) beam series λ = 3.0.
LVDT was placed in the middle of the bottom to measure the
displacement of the midspan during loading.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Table 2 summarizes the test results including the load Pexp
at failure from loading cell, the load Vcr at diagonal cracking,
and the ultimate load Vu. Both the diagonal cracking load
and the ultimate load included the self-weight of the beams.
It can be observed that with an increase of the maximum
aggregate size, the ultimate load also increased. This is
because large aggregate improved the interlocking action
through rougher crack surface. However, no relationship
was observed between the diagonal cracking load and the
aggregate size. The shear span-depth ratio has an effect on
the ultimate shear strength. For beams with the same aggre-
gate size, the ultimate loads obtained from beam series with
λ = 3.0 are lower than these obtained from beams with λ =
2.2, which is attributed to the bending effect.
The crack patterns at failure for some representative
beams are shown in Fig. 4. Similar crack patterns are present
on all beams, and horizontal splitting cracks with different
lengths initiated at the intersection of the inclined cracks
with the longitudinal steel bars, while concrete spalled along
the failure surface in beam series B2.2-1.
Figure 5 shows the load-displacement curves for all 16
beams, showing similar mode of brittle failure. Beam
series λ = 2.2 shows greater stiffness than beams with λ =
3.0. However, for beams with the same shear span-depth
ratio, no significant difference is observed among them. For
beam series λ = 2.2, critical cracks were fully developed
with a different degree of capacity loss. Additional capacity
loss was not observed but might still be able to sustain more
loads after cracking was stabilized. The ultimate capacities
may be higher than the loads corresponding to the presence
of critical diagonal cracks. However, for beam series λ = 3.0,

1134 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017

because the force equilibrium was disrupted by the diagonal
cracking,22 shear failure occurred immediately after cracking.
Effect of aggregate size
As all the concrete mixture designs were intended to reach
the same compressive strength, the effect of aggregate size on
the compressive strength could not be compared. However,
its effect on the tensile strength could be compared. In
addition to the tensile splitting strength determined exper-
imentally, another index √fc′ was also compared because
it represents the tensile strength of concrete according to
the ACI Code. Figure 6 shows no obvious trend displayed
between the maximum aggregate size and the splitting
tensile strength. Therefore, it was concluded that the increase
of maximum aggregate size has little impact on the tensile
strength of concrete.
Figure 7(a) shows the comparison of test results with calcu-
lated results using Eq. (3) and (4) according to the design codes
ACI 318-14 and CSA A23.3-04, respectively. The scattered
black dots are test results in this study and the dashed lines are
calculated from design codes. According to ACI 318-14, the
portion of shear resistance from concrete is only dependent
on the compressive strength, irrelevant to the aggregate size.
Therefore, it is a horizontal dashed line, as shown in Fig. 7(a)
and 7(b). However, design code CSA 23.3-04 considers the
influence of aggregate size on the shear resistance. With an
increase of the maximum aggregate size, the shear resistance
increases. It can be observed that both design codes are conser-
vative compared with the test results. However, test results for
beams series with λ = 3.0 are close to the calculation from
design codes than beam series with λ = 2.2.
ACI 318-141
 Vd 
Vc =  0.16 f c′ + 17ρ  bw d ≤ 0.29 f c′bw d (SI)
 M
 Vd 
Vc = 1.9 f c′ + 2500ρ  bw d ≤ 3.5 f c′bw d (U.S. customary)
 M
(3)

CSA A23.3-0423

Vc = β f c′bw d v (4)

0.40 1300
β= ⋅ (SI)
(1 + 1500ε x ) (1000 + sze )
(5)
4.82 51
β= ⋅ (U.S. customary)
(1 + 1500ε x ) (39 + sze )
Fig. 5—Load-displacement curves for: (a) beam series λ = 2.2;
and (b) beam series λ = 3.0. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = M /d v + V
εx = (6)
0.225 kip.) 2 Es As

Fig. 6—Effect of aggregate size on tensile strength of concrete. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017 1135

Fig. 7—Effect of aggregate size on nominal ultimate shear stress: (a) and (b) data from this study; (c) data from Taylor11; and
(d) data from Sherwood.17 (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Taylor11 and Sherwood et al.17 also carried out shear tests
on RC beams with different aggregate size, and their results
are also compared in Fig. 7(c) and 7(d). It is observed that
the shear capacity decreased with an increase in the aggre-
gate size, in particular for beams with ag > 40 mm (1.58 in.)
in Fig. 7(d).

Aggregate interlock
Dependent on the strength and location of coarse aggre-
gates, crack may go through or pass by them, as shown in
Fig. 8, resulting in a quite different shear behavior. Once
shear cracking initiated, both the normal and the tangential
displacements occurred at the interface of the cracks. As
the aggregates are strong, the crack would pass by them,
as shown in Fig. 8(a). In this case, aggregate interlock
from friction and colliding will be activated, consequently
hindering the tangential displacement. However, if the crack
penetrates through the aggregates, a relatively smooth crack
surface would be formed, as shown in Fig. 8(b). There-
fore, the presence of a rough crack surface and tangential
Fig. 8—Consequences of crack interact with an aggregate:
(a) pass by; and (b) penetrate through.
displacement is essential for the development of aggregate
interlocking.
After shear tests, the fracture surfaces induced by the main
shear crack are shown in Fig. 9. For normal-strength concrete
in this study, the bond strength between the cement paste and
the aggregate is lower than the strength of aggregate particle
itself. Therefore, a crack would pass by the aggregate particles
and form a rough crack surface. Moreover, based on the visual
observation of the crack surface, it is found the crack surface

1136 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017

Fig. 9—Visual observation of fracture surface induced by shear crack.
Fig. 10—Simplified shear-slip model: (a) before crack initi-
ation; (b) critical state; (c) inside critical zone; and (d)
outside critical zone.
became rougher with an increase in the size of the maximum
aggregate, indicating greater aggregate interlock action.
The shear-slip model12 between aggregate and cement paste
is schematically shown in Fig. 10. The aggregate is simplified
as a solid sphere, and the cement paste is considered as a solid
body. The center of the sphere (o) before cracking is set as the
origin of the coordinate system Δ-w, where Δ and w are the axes
corresponding to the tangential and the normal displacements,
respectively. It consists of four cases, as indicated in Fig. 10(a)
to 10(d). In Case I, where the crack is not initiated (Fig. 10(a)),
the aggregate sit in the cement paste groove and there is no
relative displacement between them. Once crack initiated, the
aggregate started to move out of the groove. Dependent on the
location of the center of the aggregate sphere, the aggregate
interlock action may be present or absent. Figure 10(b) shows
a critical condition that aggregate interlock is either enabled
or disabled. At this condition, the aggregate moves out of the
groove and is still in contact with the groove. However, there
is no mechanical interaction between the aggregate and the
groove. As shown in Fig. 10(b), when the aggregate sphere
has a horizontal displacement of Δ, the vertical displace-
ment will be w = (0.5ag ) 2 − (0.5ag − ∆ ) 2 , which can be
simplified as w = ag ∆ . When the vertical displacement w is
smaller than ag ∆ , the aggregate particle will interact with
the cement paste, as shown in Fig. 10(c), in which aggregate
interlocking takes action. On the contrary, when the vertical
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
displacement is greater than ag ∆ , the aggregate will stay
away from the cement paste and no interaction takes place,
as shown in Fig. 10(d).
During the shear tests, most of the cracks passed through
the regions A, B, and C surrounded by the LVDTs. Figure 11
shows the relative displacements of the two crack faces across
the shear crack recorded at different load steps on some repre-
sentative beams. For beam series λ = 2.2, results on them with
four different maximum aggregate sizes were displayed, while
only three beams’ results were given for beam series λ = 3.0.
This is because the measuring instrument failed unexpectedly
during the test of beams with λ = 3.0 and a maximum aggre-
gate size of 40 mm. The relative displacement at the ultimate
load was also given, which is represented by the black dot.
Models to describe the development of shear diagonal
crack on RC beams have been proposed, and the most
popular three models are shown in Fig. 12. In Walraven’s and
Guidotti’s models, the normal displacement occurs first and
then is followed by a tangential displacement. However, both
the normal and the tangential displacements happen simulta-
neously according to Ulaga’s model. As can be observed in
Fig. 11, Ulaga’s model is more suitable for the test results in
this study than Walraven and Guidotti’s models.
It is noted that for beams with the same shear span-depth
ratio, the peak shear crack displacements increased with an
increase of the size of the maximum aggregate except B2.2-
10-1. This is because with an increase in the aggregate size,
the crack surface becomes rougher, resulting in greater crit-
ical area (refer to Fig. 10), and more displacements need to
be reached at failure. For the same aggregate size, beams
with a small shear span-depth ratio showed greater ultimate
displacements, which is attributed to their higher ultimate
loads. Figure 11 also shows the calculated trajectory corre-
sponding to the critical area, and that all the displacements
happened inside the critical area. Therefore, aggregate inter-
locking transpired throughout the test.
Initiation and propagation of shear crack
The failure process was captured using a high-speed
camera, and the initiation and development of the main
crack on three beams at failure are shown in Fig. 13. For
beam series λ = 2.2, the main crack initiated due to inter-
connection of the minor shear cracks developed at lower
load levels. With an increase of load, the main crack opened
wider. The failure happened when some concrete crushed in
the web (Fig. 13(a)) or at the compression zone (Fig. 13(b)).
However, the main crack initiated suddenly for beam series
λ = 3.0, developed by penetration of the minor flexure-shear
cracks through the entire beam depth, as shown in Fig. 13(c).
No concrete crushing was observed at failure. It is also noted
1137
Fig. 11—Relative displacements of two faces across shear crack. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
Fig. 12—Shear crack development models.21
that for all the beams, the main crack never passed through
the horizontal bars at the bottom of these beams.
For specimens with the same shear span-depth ratio,
effect of aggregate size on the crack pattern was not
observed, and the crack on all the beams showed a similar
pattern. Beam series λ = 2.2 showed less brittle failure, and
the critical crack originated from the inclined minor cracks
at the mid-lower web near the support. Moreover, there was
an apparent shear sliding between the two faces separated
by the crack. Beam series λ = 3.0 exhibited brittle failure
since the critical crack suddenly formed and penetrated
through the compression zone. Despite the above differ-
ence, the main failure crack initiated from either web-shear
cracks or flexure-shear cracks, and all the failure cracks
extended horizontally along the longitudinal reinforcement
at failure.
1138
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
ATENA is a program specially designed for finite
element (FE) analysis of reinforced concrete structures. It
has some advantages over other FE analysis software, such
as sensitivity to mesh size,24 simulation of shear failure,24,25
and size effect.26
As the geometry of the beam and the test setup were
symmetric and the axial deformation during the test was
small enough to be neglected, only half of the beam was
modeled. Figure 14 shows the FE model, including geometry,
boundary conditions, and element types. An eight-node solid
element was used for concrete, and bar elements were used
for horizontal steel bars which were automatically embedded
into the concrete elements. Bond-slip between the reinforce-
ment and the surrounding concrete was assumed to obey
the bond mode in fib MC 1990.27 Displacement-controlled
loading was used with an increase of 0.10 mm at each step.
Modified Newton-Raphson and the linear search methods
were employed, and the convergence error and maximum
iteration number were set to 0.02 and 40, respectively.
The stress-strain relationship of concrete was based on
fracture-plastic model27,28 CC 3D Nonlinear Cementitious2,
which combined constitutive models for both tensile (frac-
turing) and compressive (plastic) behavior. The compressive
behavior was based on the Menetrey-Willam failure crite-
rion, and the tensile behavior was an orthotropic smeared
crack model based on the Rankine failure criterion, which
combined with crack band theory, exponential softening, and
fixed crack model. The compressive and tensile strengths
of concrete were taken as fc′ = 0.8fcu, and ft = 0.395fcu0.55,
respectively, where fcu was a constant of 40 MPa (0.58 psi).
The fracture energy is determined according to the sugges-
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
Fig. 13—Progression of failure crack: (a) B2.2-30-1 (Pu = 216.0 kN); (b) B2.2-40-1 (Pu = 246.4 kN); and (c) B3.0-10-2 (Pu
=155.6 kN). (Note: 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
tion from Hilsdorf and Brameshuber29 and set as GF = ad fc′0.7,
where ad is specified as 4, 6, or 10 corresponding to aggre-
gate size ag = 8, 16, and 32 mm (0.32, 0.63, and 1.26 in.).
For steel bars, bilinear elastic-perfectly plastic model was
applied and the yield strength was obtained from tensile
tests. A three-dimensional (3-D) interfacial material based
on Mohr-Coulomb criteria was used to model the contact
between concrete and rigid loading plate.
Parameter analysis was conducted to simulate the positive
effect of the maximum aggregate size on the shear strength.
Therefore, three fracture energy values were specified
according to the aforementioned method (refer to Table 3).
The test results and the simulated capacities from the aggre-
gate size based fracture energy are compared in Fig. 15. Scat-
tered stars are predictions from FE analysis and black dots
are test results. For beam λ = 3.0 and λ = 2.2, it is observed
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
with the increased fracture energy, the simulated capacities
also increased. However, the prediction capacities are much
higher than the test results for ag = 32 mm (1.26 in.). This
is because the only the result of one series of experiments
is available to establish the aforementioned relation.29 The
positive effect of aggregate size on the shear capacity of RC
beams can be generally simulated and explained by the frac-
ture-energy-based parameter analysis.
The simulated load-displacement curves are compared
with these from experimental results in Fig. 16. The effect
of aggregate size on these load-displacement curves was
not considered in the analysis, because the fracture energy
was specified as 0.079 N/mm (0.452 lb/in.) for maximum
aggregate size ag = 20.0 mm (0.7 in.). Therefore, only one
simulated load-displacement curve from each beam series
was shown in Fig. 16. It is observed that the load-displace-
1139
Fig. 14—Finite element model in ATENA. (Note: All dimensions are in mm; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 15—Comparison of shear strength from FE analysis
with test results for: (a) beam series λ = 2.2; and (b) beam
series λ = 3.0. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 16—Comparison of load-displacement curves from FE
analysis with test results for: (a) beam series λ = 2.2, and
(b) beam series λ = 3.0. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN =
0.225 kip.)
ment curves from FE model are much stiffer than those
from test results, which is probably attributed to the perfect
constraints or restraints from model discretization. Although
the results from FE analysis could not give a precise predic-
1140
Table 3—Aggregate-size-based fracture energy
amax, mm ad fc′, MPa GF, N/mm
8 4 32.0 0.045
16 6 32.0 0.068
32 10 32.0 0.113
Notes: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi; 1 N/mm = 0.452 lb/in.
tion on the beam behavior, they can give some hints on
the understanding of stress distribution, crack pattern, and
failure process.
Figure 17 shows the crack pattern and stress distribution
from FE analysis for beam λ = 2.2. Compared with exper-
imental results, the FE results successfully simulated both
the shear failure and crack development (Fig. 17(a) and
17(b)). As shown in Fig. 17(c) and 17(d), diagonal cracking
occurred when the principal tensile stress of elements within
the highlighted area by the dotted line approximately equaled
the preset tensile strength of concrete.
For beam series λ = 3.0, as shown in Fig. 18, some hori-
zontal splitting cracks appeared after beam failure (Fig. 18(b)),
which is attributed to the inclined principal tensile stress at the
bottom of the beam close to the support (refer to Fig. 18(c)
and 18(d)). The principal tensile stress within the tip of the
inclined crack partly affected the development of the unstable
diagonal crack upward the compression zone. Moreover, the
orientations of these principal tensile stresses within the high-
light area by the dotted line, and at the tip of inclined crack are
both approximately parallel to the moving directions of the FE
segments near the support, as shown in Fig. 13(c).
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of shear tests and finite element  anal-
ysis, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The maximum aggregate size had little effect on
the tensile strength of concrete, but it did improve the shear
capacity of beams without shear reinforcement. The design
codes ACI 318-14 and CSA A23.3-04 are more conservative
compared with the test results.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017
Fig. 17—Results of FEM analysis of series λ = 2.2: (a) failure crack patterns of specimens of Series B2.2-1; (b) final crack
pattern of FEM analysis; (c) crack pattern and principal tensile stress in Step 12, P = 213.0 kN; and (d) crack pattern and
principal tensile stress in Step 13, Pu = 214.6 kN. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.0145 ksi; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)

Fig. 18—Results of FEM analysis of series λ = 3.0: (a) failure crack patterns of specimens of Series B3.0-1; (b) final crack
pattern of FEM analysis; (c) crack pattern and principal tensile stress in Step 20, P = 149.2 kN; and (d) Crack pattern and
principal tensile stress in Step 25, Pu = 173.1 kN. (Note: 1 MPa = 0.0145 ksi; 1 kN = 0.225 kip.)
2. A two-dimensional (2-D) shear-slip model was used to
interpret the effect of the aggregate size on the interlocking
action to the shear behavior of beams. A critical zone was
recognized in the model, which was correlated to the rela-
tive displacements of the crack faces. The model was further
validated by the measurements of the relative displacement
from LVDTs.
3. For beams with different shear span-depth ratios, shear
failure may also initiated by the web-shear cracks or the minor
flexure-shear cracks to a main shear crack. The failure mode
of beam series λ = 3.0 showed more brittle feature than beam
series λ = 2.2. Moreover, at failure, the main cracks penetrated
horizontally along the longitudinal steel bars.
4. FE analysis successfully simulated the crack pattern
and failure process for both beam series. The principle
tensile stress first reached the tensile strength of concrete in
the middle-lower part of the web, causing diagonal cracking
for beam series λ = 2.2. However, for beam series λ = 3.0,
the formation of horizontal splitting cracks after failure
was attributed to the inclined principal tensile stress at the
bottom of the beam close to the support. The development
of the unstable diagonal crack upward the compression zone
was partly affected by the principal tensile stress within the
tip of the inclined crack. Moreover, the effect of maximum
aggregate size on the shear strength can be simulated by the
fracture-energy-based parameter analysis.
AUTHOR BIOS
Wei-Jian Yi is a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Hunan
University, Changsha, China. His research interests include behavior of
concrete structures, seismic and blast designs of civil infrastructures, struc-
tural health monitoring, and durability of concrete structures.
Qing Deng is a PhD Student in the Department of Civil Engineering at
Hunan University, where he received his BS. His research interests include
shear behavior and finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structures.
Fujian Tang is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Missouri University of
Science and Technology, Rolla, MO, where he received his MS in mate-
rials science and PhD in civil engineering. His research interests include
concrete structural durability, steel reinforcing bar protective coatings, and
development of optical fiber corrosion sensors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by
the China National Science Foundation under Awards No. 51338004 and
No. 51178175. The findings and opinions expressed in this paper are those
of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the sponsor.
NOTATION
As = area of longitudinal reinforcement

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017 1141

ad = coefficient reflecting effect of maximum aggregate size on frac-
ture energy
ag = maximum aggregate size
bw = web width at section
d = effective depth at section
dv = effective shear depth, taken as greater of 0.9d or 0.72h
Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement
fc′ = compression strength of concrete in cylinder
fcu = compression strength of concrete in cube
ft = calculated tension strength of concrete
ft,s = splitting tension strength of concrete in cube
h = depth at section
l1 = original length of LVDT installed parallel to Side DE
l1′ = measured length of LVDT installed parallel to Side DE after
cracking
l2 = original length of LVDT installed parallel to Side DF
l2′ = measured length of LVDT installed parallel to Side DF after
cracking
M = moment at section
s z = crack spacing parameter, taken as dv
sze = equivalent value of sz that allows for influence of aggregate size,
taken as 35sx/(16 + ag) ≥ 0.85sz
V = shear force at section
Vc = shear force carried by concrete
w = normal displacement between inclined crack
β = factor accounting for shear resistance of cracked concrete
∆ = tangential displacement between inclined crack
εx = longitudinal strain at middepth of member
θ1 = angle between direction of shear displacement and direction of
Side DE of the Triangle DEF
θ2 = angle between direction of shear displacement and direction of
Side DF of the Triangle DEF
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.
2. Reineck, K. H.; Bentz, E. C.; Fitik, B.; Kuchma, D. A.; and Bayrak,
O., “ACI-DAfStb Database of Shear Tests on Slender Reinforced Concrete
Beams without Stirrups,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.
2013, pp. 867-875.
3. 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. 219-224.
4. Muttoni, A., and Fernández Ruiz, M., “Shear Strength of Members
without Transverse Reinforcement as a Function of the Critical Shear Crack
Width,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 105, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2008, pp. 163-166.
5. Kotsovos, M. D., “Compressive Force Path: Basis for Ultimate Limit
State Reinforced Concrete Design,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 1,
Jan.-Feb. 1988, pp. 68-72.
6. Zhang, J.-P., “Diagonal Cracking and Shear Strength of Reinforced
Concrete Beams,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 49, No. 178, 1997,
pp. 55-65. doi: 10.1680/macr.1997.49.178.55
7. Zararis, P. D., and Papadakis, G., “Diagonal Shear Failure and Size
Effect in RC Beams without Web Reinforcement,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, V. 127, No. 7, 2001, pp. 733-742. doi: 10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:7(733)
8. Park, H.-G., and Choi, K.-K., “Strain-Based Shear Strength Model
for Slender Beams without Web Reinforcement,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 103, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2006, pp. 783-785.
9. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, “Recent Approaches to Shear
Design of Structural Concrete (ACI 445R-99) (Reapproved 2009),” Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1999, 55 pp.
1142
View publication stats
10. Fenwick, R. C., and Paulay, T., “Mechanisms of Shear Resistance of
Concrete Beams,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 94, No. 10,
1968, pp. 2328-2336.
11. Taylor, H. P. J., “Shear Strength of Large Beams,” Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, V. 98, 1972, pp. 2484-2488.
12. Walraven, J. C., “Aggregate Interlock: A Theoretical and Experi-
mental Analysis,” PhD thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the
Netherlands, 1980, 197 pp.
13. Ulaga, T., “Betonbauteile mit stab-und lamellenbewehrung:
verbund-und zuggliedmodellierung,” PhD thesis, ETHZ, Zurich, Switzer-
land, 2003, 160 pp. (in German)
14. Guidotti, R., “Poinçonnement des planchers-dalles avec colonnes
superposées fortement sollicitées,” PhD thesis, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzer-
land, 2007, 189 pp. (in French)
15. Sato, Y.; Tadokoro, T.; and Ueda, T., “Diagonal Tensile Failure
Mechanism of Reinforced Concrete beams,” Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology, V. 2, No. 3, 2004, pp. 327-341. doi: 10.3151/jact.2.327
16. Chana, P. S., “Investigation of the Mechanism of Shear Failure of
Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 39,
No. 141, 1987, pp. 196-204. doi: 10.1680/macr.1987.39.141.196
17. Sherwood, E. G.; Bentz, E. C.; and Collins, M. P., “Effect of Aggre-
gate Size on Beam-Shear Strength of Thick Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal,
V. 104, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2007, pp. 180-183.
18. McCain, K. A., “The Effect of Scale on the Resistance of Reinforced
Concrete Beams to Shear,” master’s thesis, Purdue University, West Lafay-
ette, IN, 2012,174 pp.
19. Muttoni, A., and Thürlimann, B., “Shear Tests on Beams and Slabs
without Shear Reinforcement,” Institut für Baustatik und Konstruktion,
Zürich, Switzerland, 1986, pp. 9-12.
20. Cavagnis, F.; Fernández Ruiz, M.; and Muttoni, A., “Shear Failures
in Reinforced Concrete Members without Transverse Reinforcement: An
Analysis of the Critical Shear Crack Development on the Basis of Test
Results,” Engineering Structures, V. 103, 2015, pp. 157-173. doi: 10.1016/j.
engstruct.2015.09.015
21. Campana, S.; Fernández Ruiz, M.; Anastasi, A.; and Muttoni, A.,
“Analysis of Shear-Transfer Actions on One-Way RC Members Based on
Measured Cracking Pattern and Failure Kinematics,” Magazine of Concrete
Research, V. 65, No. 6, 2013, pp. 386-404. doi: 10.1680/macr.12.00142
22. Joint ASCE-ACI Committee 326, “Shear and Diagonal Tension—
Part 1,” ACI Journal Proceedings, V. 59, No. 1, Jan. 1962, pp. 22-25.
23. CAN/CSA A23.3-04, “Design of Concrete Structures,” Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 2004, 214 pp.
24. Jendele, L., and Cervenka, J., “Finite Element Modelling of Rein-
forcement with Bond,” Computers & Structures, V. 84, No. 28, 2006,
pp. 1780-1791. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2006.04.010
25. Collins, M. P.; Bentz, E. C.; Quach, P. T.; and Proestos, G. T., “The
Challenge of Predicting the Shear Strength of Very Thick Slabs,” Concrete
International, V. 37, No. 11, Nov. 2015, pp. 29-30.
26. Yu, Q., and Bažant, Z. P., “Can Stirrups Suppress Size Effect on Shear
Strength of RC Beams?” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 137,
No. 5, 2011, pp. 607-617. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000295
27. Cervenka, V.; Jendele, L.; and Cervenka, J., “ATENA Program Docu-
mentation—Part 1: Theory,” Cervenka Consulting Ltd., Prague, Czech
Republic, 2012, 280 pp.
28. Červenka, J., and Papanikolaou, V. K., “Three-Dimensional
Combined Fracture–Plastic Material Model for Concrete,” International
Journal of Plasticity, V. 24, No. 12, 2008, pp. 2192-2220. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijplas.2008.01.004
29. Hilsdorf, H. K., and Brameshuber, W., “Code-Type Formulation of
Fracture Mechanics Concepts for Concrete,” Current Trends in Concrete
Fracture Research, Springer, the Netherlands, 1991, pp. 62-66.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2017