1 KNUSTDCESTRENG2016 TR3 A

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/324165288
Shear strength characteristics of reinforced concrete beams made from

phyllite aggregates
Technical Report · September 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16115.63526
CITATIONS READS
0 1,441
2 authors:
Russell Owusu Afrifa Mark Adom-Asamoah
19 PUBLICATIONS 132 CITATIONS
Kwame Nkrumah University Of Science and Technology
65 PUBLICATIONS 252 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
The use of steel rods milled from scrap metal in concrete View project
Progressive collapse View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mark Adom-Asamoah on 02 April 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE
(RC) BEAMS MADE FROM PHYLLITE AGGREGATES
Russell Owusu Afrifa
Mark Adom-Asamoah
Department of Civil Engineering,

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology,
Kumasi, Ghana.
Report KNUST/DCE/STRENG/2016/TR3
September, 2016
1
ABSTRACT
This research work reports on the shear behavior of 26 reinforced concrete beams
made of phyllite and granite aggregates. A comparative study on shear strength of 10
RC phyllite beams without web reinforcement and 10 RC granite beams without web
reinforcement indicated higher shear loads in granite beams than phyllite beams. Six
(6) RC phyllite beams with varying amount of web reinforcement were also tested.
Five different shear design equations (BS8110, ACI 318-02, EC 2, NZS 3101 and
AS 3600) were compared to check their predictability of the low strength phyllite
and granite concrete beams.
Results revealed that shear strength characteristics of phyllite RC beams without
shear reinforcement compared well with that of granite RC beams. Comparing the
five codes, it was realized that EC2 provided significant improvement in prediction
uniformity of the low strength RC beams. Beams subjected to cyclic loads exhibited
wider crack widths as compared to corresponding beams subjected to monotonic
loading. First diagonal shear crack is independent of the amount of shear links and
mode of application of the load (monotonic or cyclic). First diagonal shear crack load
of beams without shear reinforcement was between 42-92% of the failure load whilst
those of beams with shear links ranged from 42-58% of the failure loads. The phyllite
concrete beams without shear links had lower post-diagonal shear resistance. It is
suggested that anchorage of reinforcing bars in phyllite RC beams should be
designed properly to ensure that premature failure under cyclic loads do not occur.
2
Table of Contents
SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

(RC) BEAMS MADE FROM PHYLLITE AGGREGATES 1
ABSTRACT 2
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 6
Figure 1.1 Shear failures in a beam of Church building, Obuasi-Ghana 7
Figure 1.2 Shear failures at beams–column junction, Church building Obuasi-
Ghana 7
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 7
1.3 OBJECTIVES 8
1.4 ORGANIZATION 9
CHAPTER 2 SHEAR BEHAVIOUR IN CONCRETE BEAMS 10
2.0 INTRODUCTION 10
2.1 Basic Shear Transfer Mechanism in beams without transverse reinforcement
................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.1 Principal stresses in a beam (Mosley et al, 1999) 10
Figure 2.2 Internal forces in a cracked beam without stirrups 13
2.2 Reinforced concrete beams with transverse reinforcement 13
2.2.1 Truss Mechanism .............................................................................................. 14
Figure 2.3 Truss mechanism 14
2.2.2 Arch Mechanism ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 2.4 Arch mechanism modeled by Watanabe and Ichinose (1991) 15
2.2.3 Compression Field Theory (CFT) ..................................................................... 16
Figure 2.5 Equations of modified compression field theory (Bentz et al, 2006) 17
2.3 Review of shear models for reinforced concrete members 17
2.3.1 Models adapted in code of practice................................................................... 18
2.3..2 Predictive and Analytical Models .................................................................... 25
Figure 2.6 Ductility curve Wong et al (1993) 29
2.3.3. General comments on the different shear models ............................................ 31
Figure 2.7 Section of beam for verification analysis 32
Table 2.1 Results of the design based on some of the models 32
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 33
3
3.1 INTRODUCTION 33
3.2 MATERIAL SOURCE AND PREPARATION 33
Table 3.1 Steel test results 34
3.3 BEAM GEOMETRY AND DETAILS 35
Table 3.2 Specimen description of beam without web reinforcement 36
Figure 3.1 Reinforcement details of beams in shear without shear links 37
3.3.2 Reinforced concrete beams designed in shear with stirrups ...................... 38
Table 3.3 Specimen description of beam with web reinforcement 38
Figure 3.2 Reinforcement details of beams in shear with shear links 39
Figure 3.3 Schematic diagram of experimental setup 40
CHAPTER 4 SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE (RC) BEAMS MADE FROM PHYLLITE 41
4.1 INTRODUCTION 41
4.2 RC BEAMS WITHOUT TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT 42
4.2.1 Ultimate strength 42
Table 4.1 Experimental and theoretical loads of tested beams in shear 43
4.2.2 Load deflection behaviour 44
Figure 4.2(a) Load-deflection curves of beams 45
Figure 4.2(b) Load-deflection curves of beams 46
Figure 4.3(a) Load-deflection curves of beams 47
Figure 4.3(b) Comparison of load-deflection behaviour of phyllite and granite
RC beams 48
4.2.3 Deflection under service loads 48
Table 4.2 Service load deflections 49
4.2.4 Cracking characteristics of phyllite and granite concrete beams 50
Figure 4.4(a) Crack pattern in beams GS3 after failure 50
Figure 4.4(b) Crack pattern in beams PS3 after failure 50
Figure 4.5 Load-crack width behaviours 52
4.2.5 Shear resistance characteristics of phyllite and granite concrete beam 52
Figure 4.6 Effect of beam depth on normalized shear stress for PC and GC 53
4.2.6 Comparison of test results with various design approaches 54
Table 4.3 Summary of different shear equations (units MPa, mm) 55
Table 4.4 Prediction of various design approaches 56
Table 4.5 Statistical error measure of shear approaches 57
4
4.3 RC BEAMS MADE FROM PHYLLITE CONCRETE WITH TRANSVERSE (WEB)
REINFORCEMENT 58
4.3.1 Experimental load characteristics of phyllite concrete beams 58
Table 4.6 Experimental loads of tested beams in shear 59
4.3.2 Load-deflection behaviour 60
Figure 4.7 Load-deflection behaviour of phyllite beams with stirrups 60
4.3.3 Cracking and failure modes of specimens 61
Table 4.7 Experimental failure modes 62
Figure 4.8 Crack pattern in beams PSL1-PSL6 and PS4 63
Figure 4.9 Graph of load against crack width for PS4, PSL1, PSL3 and PSL5 64
4.3.4 Effect of cyclic loading 65
Figure 4.10Load-deflection curves for cyclic and monotonic loading (PSL1-PSL4)
66
66
4.4 CONCLUSIONS 67
BIBLIOGRAPHY 69
APPENDIX A DIAGRAMS OFPHYLLITESCONCRETE BEAMS WITHOUT WEB
REINFORCEMENT 78
APPENDIX B DIAGRAMSOF GRANITE CONCRETE BEAMS WITHOUT WEB
REINFORCEMENT 79
APPENDIX C DIAGRAMS OF PHYLLITE CONCRETE BEAMS WITH WEB REINFORCEMENT
80
5
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Phyllite, a naturally occurring aggregate is being produced as by-product of
underground mining activities of the AngloGold Ashanti mines Obuasi, in the
Ashanti Region of Ghana. The Republic of Ghana in West Africa is located on the
latitude and longitude of 08˚00’N and 02˚00’W respectively. The geographic
location of the Obuasi mines is on the latitude 06˚17’N and longitude 01˚40’W on
the world map. Artisans and small- scale contractors use the phyllite aggregate for
pavement and building construction.
Reports indicate that buildings, constructed with phyllite as coarse aggregate
in concrete in Obuasi show extensive cracks and partial or total collapse of structural
elements (Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2). Structurally, concrete is considered weak in
flexural strength. The major contribution of concrete to strength in concrete
component subjected to bending and shear is in shear and compression. Much is not
known about concrete made from phyllite aggregates and no work has been done to
investigate the structural behavior of this type of concret. This work therefore,
concentrates on the shear behaviour of structural component made with phyllite
concrete.
6
Figure 1.1 Shear failures in a beam of Church building, Obuasi-Ghana
Figure 1.2 Shear failures at beams–column junction, Church building Obuasi-Ghana
1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Since aggregate use and cost of concrete production are related to availability and
haulage distance, the use of phyllite aggregates is one of such attempt to substitute
for crushed granite as coarse aggregates in concrete production. The presence of
phyllites has been reported in several countries such as Spain (Garzon et al, 2010),
Venezuela (Vazquez et al, 2005), south western Germany and eastern France
(Montenari et al, 2000) and the Himalayan region (Ramamurthy et al, 1993). In
Ghana, phyllite rocks are obtained as a by-product of underground mining activity.
7
The continuous accumulation of phyllite aggregates is an environmental issue if no
use is found for this waste material. Environmental regulations have also become
more stringent, causing waste to become increasingly expensive to dispose.
Subsequently, exploitation of the waste material as sustainable building material in
the construction industry helps preserve the natural resources such as sources of
coarse aggregates. Phyllite aggregates are already in use as coarse aggregates in
concrete production by small scale contractors. Artisans and small scale contractors
in and around the mining towns therefore, use the phyllite aggregates for pavement
and construction. Reports indicate that over 50,000 cubic meters of phyllite are used
annually from the quarry in Obuasi. Ghana is yet to experience the use of phyllite
aggregates in large scale structural applications. Firstly, the observation of partial and
complete collapse of structural concrete elements made from phyllite aggregates do
not convince the general public of the performance of phyllite concrete compared to
normal (granite) concrete. Secondly, there is insufficient information on the
structural performance of this material in terms of laboratory tests to provide
adequate guidance and confidence to designers. Users of the material have assumed
that the behaviour of the phyllite aggregates is the same as using aggregates specified
by various standards and specifications, yet results are misleading.
1.3 OBJECTIVES
This research seeks to consider important technical areas which the phyllite
aggregate could be used specifically for concrete. To achieve meaningful basis for
that, the objective of this research include:
8
● To determine the shear behaviour of reinforced concrete made of phyllite
aggregates. Reinforced concrete beams without stirrups made of phyllite
aggregates and granite aggregates are compared. The behaviour of phyllite
beams with shear reinforcement under cyclic as compared to monotonic
loading is also considered.
● To evaluate shear strength prediction models for low strength reinforced
concrete beams without shear reinforcement.
1.4 ORGANIZATION
A review of previous researches related to the use of selected codes of practice and
analytical procedures on the shear behavior of reinforced concrete beams is provided
in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 describes the test program including all test specimen details,
material source properties, test specimen construction, test setup, instrumentation,
and the loading procedures. This involves laboratory works on concrete cubes,
modulus of rupture beams and reinforced concrete beams in shear.
In Chapter 4, the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams using phyllite aggregates
without transverse reinforcement as compared to reinforced concrete beams using
granite aggregates is reported on. Results are compared with provisions made by
different code expressions (BS8110, 1997, ACI 318, 2002, EC2, 1992, AS 3600,
1999, NZS 3101, 1995).
9
CHAPTER 2 SHEAR BEHAVIOUR IN CONCRETE BEAMS
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Basic Shear Transfer Mechanism in beams without transverse reinforcement
Reinforced concrete beams are designed to resist shear resulting from the
combination of ultimate loads once the primary longitudinal reinforcement has been
determined. Considering the simple supported beam in Figure 2.1 as load is
distributed across the span of the beam, principal compressive stresses take the form
of an arch and tensile stresses assume the form of suspended cable.
Compression
Tension
Diagonal tension crack
Figure 2.1 Principal stresses in a beam (Mosley et al, 1999)

At the supports the high shearing forces generate greater principal stresses which are
inclined at an angle. This causes the tensile stress, which is dominant at the mid-span
and almost parallel to the beam axis to develop diagonal cracks. When the diagonal
tension exceeds the tensile strength of the concrete then shear reinforcement needs to
be provided. It means that reinforced concrete beams which do not have transverse
reinforcement possess some shear strength that can resist shear stresses before
10
diagonal tension cracks develop. The shear capacity of the beam without transverse
reinforcement is provided by;
1. Concrete in the compression zone
2. Aggregate interlock across crack planes
3. Dowel action of longitudinal reinforcement
The addition of transverse reinforcement provides an extra resistance to the shearing
forces and that accounts for a fourth component contributing to the overall shear
capacity of reinforced concrete structures. It is difficult to estimate and isolate the
individual contributions of the first three components to shear. Therefore the section
of structural specimens resists the external shear after the flexural cracking and
before the diagonal cracking. Load increase causes tensile stress build up in the
reinforcement. As the applied shear increases, the dowel action is the first to reach
capacity. When shear cracks occur, the concrete in between the cracks isolate and
cuts the incremental tensile flow in the longitudinal reinforcement. Compressive
stresses due to aggregates interlock intercept the cracks. As the load increases the
aggregate interlock effect also decreases to allow transfer of large shear force to the
concrete compressive zone. This results in a sudden, abrupt shear failure. The beams
may fail depending on the type of beam and the shear span to effective depth ratio. In
Most cases failure occurs by anchorage or bond failure and/or compression failure at
the top of the beam.
Many research works have shown that failure mode of RC beams without stirrups
depend on shear span to effective depth ratio. Larranga (2004) indicated that the
strength of beams specimens with respect to tangential stress increase in beams with
11
shear span/depth ratio less than 2.5. Ahmed and Lue (1987) also observed that
decrease in a/d increases shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams without web
reinforcement. Ferguson (1956) explained that when the a/d is decreased, a direct
load transfer to the supports causes local loading effect which increases the
resistances to shear.
Taylor (1974) reported that for RC beams without web reinforcement, shear strength
can be derived from the contribution of compression shear zone, aggregate interlock
ranging from 35% to 50% and the dowel action of longitudinal steel reinforcement
ranging between 15%-25%. This shows how frictional forces that develop across the
shear crack are a major component of shear capacity.
Increase in the amount of tension reinforcement is known to influence the shear
strength of beams. Commenting on the ACI-318, Ahmed et al (1986) concluded that
the code provide conservative results for high strength concrete beams having low
percentage of longitudinal steel reinforcement. Tempos and Frosch (2002) reported
that to allow concrete resist shear, higher reinforcement ratio will reduce crack width
to enhance ‘aggregate interlock’ and “dowel action”. It was confirmed that reduction
in tensile steel ratio in beams results in higher steel stresses and low strength. Many
researchers have proposed models to calculate the shear crack load of reinforced
concrete without web reinforcement at shear cracking levels.
From Figure 2.2, the un-cracked section of concrete compressive zone provides
resistance,𝑉𝑐𝑧 , the force due to aggregates interlock,𝑉𝑎 , and the force carried by the
longitudinal bars crossed by the diagonal crack, 𝑉𝑑 combines into the total shear
12
resistance of the reinforced concrete without shear links. The total shear force 𝑉𝑐 can
then be expressed as:
𝑉𝑐 = 𝑉𝑐𝑧 + 𝑉𝑎𝑦 + 𝑉𝑑 (2.14)

A
C1 (Concrete compression)
VCZ
B
D
Va Vax C1
Diagonal Crack Vay
Vay V 1CZ
Vax
Vd
T2(Steel Tension)
T2 T1
C F E
Vd
R
Figure 2.2 Internal forces in a cracked beam without stirrups
2.2 Reinforced concrete beams with transverse reinforcement

The shear strength of RC beams with shear links can be determined by adding that of
shear links contribution, Vs to the concrete contribution, Vc. Although researchers
have taken effort to explain the shear behaviour of reinforced concrete structure by
adopting various models, there is lack of a universally accepted model. Different
codes provide different means of estimation which always included empirical term.
The shear strength provided by one code may be a number of times the value
calculated by another code. However, for majority of the simple analytical models
that derive the shear strength of a reinforced concrete member, the ultimate capacity
is defined by the superposition of these three terms:
▪ Truss mechanism
▪ Arch (strut and tie) mechanism
13
▪ Empirical term that account for effect of longitudinal reinforcement,
aggregate interlock and the shear transmission by the uncracked concrete in
compression
Other analytical models based on compressive field theories have been developed to
design for ultimate shear capacity of reinforced concrete beams.
2.2.1 Truss Mechanism

In a flexure dominated reinforced concrete (RC) member such as RC beam, shear
stresses cause diagonal cracks to develop and the concrete divides into series of
diagonal concrete struts. The cracked member acts like a truss having parallel
longitudinal chords, and a web composed of diagonal concrete struts and transverse
steel ties.
2P
Compression chord Transverse ties (stirrups)
Concrete strut Tension chord

P inclined @ 45 P
Figure 2.3 Truss mechanism
The truss model predicts shear capacity by assuming angle, θ equal to 45ᵒ of the
cracked concrete in the web to longitudinal member and ignoring contribution of the
tensile strength of the concrete (Bentz et al, 2006). These lead to conservative
estimate of shear strength, especially in beams with small amount of stirrups
14
As the RC beam is loaded the concrete strut work in compression while the
longitudinal bottom chord and the transverse reinforcement work in tension. The
assumption is that there is a compatibility of deformation of the composite structure-
steel and concrete, and so far as the bond between the steel and the concrete remains
intact, this mechanism controls the behaviour of the structure in the elastic state and
the post elastic state up to ultimate strength.
2.2.2 Arch Mechanism

As the applied loads get closer to the supports, shear span to depth ratio decreases.
This causes high shear stresses with dominant compressive stresses. The behaviour is
adequately analyzed using the strut and tie mechanism or the arch mechanism
(Figure 2.4), a model defined by Watanabe and Ichinose (1991).
Figure 2.4 Arch mechanism modeled by Watanabe and Ichinose (1991)
In the mechanism a single inclined strut is in constant compression with two parallel
ties under constant tension. Further increase in axial compressive loads enhances the
shear transfer mechanism. The transverse reinforcement also performs in confining
the concrete strut and to reduce the tendency of concrete split within the system.
However it can lead to crushing of the concrete strut. In the strut-and-tie modeling,
the strength of a strut is calculated based on the strain of the tie which adjoins the
15
strut in question. Design engineers have had difficulty applying these procedures
because of this strain term. When concentrated loads are located at a distance more
than twice the effective depth of beam from the support, confining action of the web
is not fully mobilized hence less conservative results are obtained. The model does
not consider the compatibility of deformation of the steel and concrete.
2.2.3 Compression Field Theory (CFT)

In the original truss model to predict shear capacity, the cracked concrete in the web
is assumed to be at an angle, θ equal to 45ᵒ to longitudinal member and ignoring
contribution of the tensile strength of the concrete (Bentz et al, 2006). These lead to
conservative estimation of shear strength, especially in beams with small amount of
stirrups. Other researchers (Neilsen, 1984, Muttoni et al, 1997) thought that the
angle, θ is not 45ᵒ. A more rational theory of shear known as the compression field
theory was then developed (Collins, 1978, Vecchio and Collins 1982). The theory
use equilibrium, compatibility and stress-strain relationships and strain conditions in
the web to determine the inclination, θ. The inclination is related to the longitudinal
strain in the web, εx, the transverse tensile strain in the web εz and the diagonal
compressive strain ε2 in the equation:
Tan 2θ= (εx + ε2) / (εz + ε2) (2.1)
Since the longitudinal strain, εx in the web is much smaller than the transverse tensile
strain, εz in the web, the inclination, θ can be considerably less than 45ᵒ and that
increases predicted shear strength of the web. However tensile stress in the cracked
concrete is ignored. To account for the average principal tensile stresses in the
cracked concrete, equilibrium , geometric, stress-strain relationships and other
constitutive relationships were used to develop a modified compression field theory
16
(MCFT) with about 15 different equations shown in Figure 2.18 (Vecchio and
Collins, 1986).
Figure 2.5 Equations of modified compression field theory (Bentz et al, 2006)
However, solving the equations of the MCFT given in Figure 2.5 is, of course, very
tedious if done by hand. Therefore computer program will have to be employed to
solve such problems.
2.3 Review of shear models for reinforced concrete members

Different codes of practice for the design of reinforced concrete structures
adapt certain model of shear to provide conservation and high margin of safety
designs. Various analytical models seek to improve on shear capacity of RC member.
This section reviews shear model in two directions:
1. Models adapted in codes of practice
2. Analytical models
17
2.3.1 Models adapted in code of practice
(i) ACI 318-02 (2002)
The design shear strength equation provided in ACI 318-02 calculates the
ultimate shear strength, 𝑉𝑛 of RC members as the summation of contribution from the
transverse reinforcement (𝑉𝑠 ) and concrete component (𝑉𝑐 ).
𝑉𝑛 =𝑉𝑠 + 𝑉𝑐 (2.2)
The contribution of the transverse reinforcement is calculated as
𝐴𝑣 𝑓𝑦𝑣 𝑑
𝑉𝑠 = (2.3)
𝑠
where 𝐴𝑣 is the transverse reinforcement area; 𝑠 is the web spacing in the loading
direction, 𝑑 is the effective depth and 𝑓𝑦𝑣 is the yield strength of the transverse
reinforcement.
The concrete contribution for member subjected to shear and axial compression
0.073𝑃
𝑉𝑐 = 0.17(1 + )√𝑓𝑐′ 𝑏𝑑 (2.4)
𝐴𝑔
where 𝑃 is the axial load, which is positive for compression, 𝐴𝑔 is the gross cross-
sectional area, 𝑓𝑐′ is the specific characteristic compressive strength and 𝑏 and 𝑑 are
the web width and effective depth respectively.
(ii) ASCE – ACI Committee 426 (1973)
The ASCE-ACI Committee 426 published a report on the shear strength of RC
member in 1973 and provided reason on undesirable shear failure of RC members.
The report reviewed typical shear transfer mechanism and made a proposal that
18
accounted for some parameters that are not captured in the ACI approach. This
approach also calculated the shear strength, 𝑉𝑛 as equal to the sum of contribution of
the transverse reinforcement and contribution of the concrete component. Thus
𝑉𝑛 = 𝑉𝑠 + 𝑉𝑐 (2.5)
The contribution of the transverse reinforcement is calculated as
𝑉𝑠 = (2.6)
𝑠
Where, 𝐴𝑣 is the transverse reinforcement area; 𝑠 is the web spacing in the loading
direction and 𝑓𝑦𝑣 is the characteristic yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
and 𝑑 is the effective depth. However for columns;
𝑑 = 0.8ℎ for rectangular sections, where ℎ is the total depth of section
𝑑 = 0.8𝐷 for circular section, where 𝐷 is the diameter
For the estimation of 𝑉𝑐 , two methods were proposed by the committee, the ‘simple’
and ‘refined’ method.
For the ‘simple’ method, considering members subjected to axial compression, the
concrete contribution is calculated by
3𝑃
𝑉𝑐 = 𝑣𝑐 (1 + 𝑓′ )𝑏𝑑 (2.7)
𝑐 𝐴𝑔
where 𝑃 is the axial load, which is positive for compression, 𝐴𝑔 is the gross cross-
sectional area, 𝑓𝑐′ is the specific characteristic compressive strength and 𝑏 and 𝑑 are
the web width and effective depth respectively and 𝑣𝑐 which is in 𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 is given
by;
19
𝑣𝑐 = (0.8 + 100𝜌)√𝑓′𝑐 ≤ 2.0√𝑓′𝑐 (2.8)
𝐴
where the tensile steel reinforcement ratio, 𝜌 = (𝑏𝑑𝑠 )
In the ‘refined’ method, a predictive equation was provided to account for the shear
strength required to initiate flexure-shear cracks, 𝑉𝑐𝑖 and web shear cracking, 𝑉𝑐𝑤 .
0.167ℎ𝑃
𝑉𝑐𝑖 = 𝑣𝑐 𝐴𝑒 + (for rectangular section) (2.9)
𝑎
0.125𝐷𝑃
𝑉𝑐𝑖 = 𝑣𝑐 𝐴𝑒 + (for circular section) (2.10)
𝑎
𝐴𝑒 is effective area, a is the ratio of moment to shear (M/V)
𝑉𝑐𝑤 = 0.29√𝑓′𝑐 𝐴𝑒 + 0.24𝑃(for rectangular section) (2.11)
𝑉𝑐𝑤 = 0.29√𝑓′𝑐 𝐴𝑒 + 0.31𝑃 (for rectangular section) (2. 12)
(iii) British Standard BS 8110 (1997)
The BS 8110 employs the truss mechanism where the stirrup spacing is less than the
effective depth. This approach also calculates the ultimate shear strength of the RC
member by summing the contribution of the transverse reinforcement and that of
concrete.
𝑉𝑠 = (2.13)
𝑠
Considering a factor of safety of 1.05 for the yield strength shear reinforcement
𝑉𝑠 = (0.95) (2.14)
𝑠
20
where 𝐴𝑣 is the transverse reinforcement area; 𝑠 is the web spacing in the loading
direction and 𝑓𝑦𝑣 is the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement and 𝑑 is the
effective depth.
100𝐴𝑠 1 400 1 1 𝑓𝑐 1
𝑉𝑐 = 0.79𝐴𝑒 ( )3 ( )4 𝛾 (25)3 (2.15)
𝑏𝑑 𝑑
In the code, the terms
100𝐴𝑠
should not be taken as greater than 3
𝑏𝑑
(𝐴𝑒 = 𝑏𝑑) is the effective area,
400 1
( )4 should not be taken as less than 0.67 for members without shear reinforcement
𝑑
400 1
( )4 should not be taken as less than 1 for members with shear reinforcement
𝑑
The approach considers the characteristic concrete strength greater than 25𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
but not greater than 40𝑁/𝑚𝑚2.
For shear and axial load combined
0.6𝑁𝑉ℎ
𝑉′𝑐 = 𝑣𝑐 + (2.16)
𝐴𝑐 𝑀
𝑣𝑐 as obtained in equation 2.15
𝑁 is axial load, 𝑉 is shear, 𝑀 is the moment and 𝐴𝑔 gross area of concrete section.
Since large shearing forces liable to cause crushing of the concrete shear stress, at the
face of the support the average shear stress should not exceed the lesser of 0.8√𝑓′𝑐
or 5𝑁/𝑚𝑚2
21
When the axial load is tensile, 𝑁 is taken as negative.
(iv) Eurocode 2 (1992)
The ultimate shear strength of RC members is determined by summing the
contribution of the concrete and the web reinforcement.
𝑉 = 𝑉𝑤 + 𝑉𝑐 (2.17)
The transverse reinforcement contribution to the shear is estimated by the truss
mechanism term which is given as
𝐴𝑠𝑤 𝑓𝑦𝑤 (0.9𝑑)

𝑉𝑤 = (2.18)
𝑠
where 𝐴𝑠𝑤 is the transverse reinforcement area; 𝑠 is the web spacing in the loading
direction and 𝑓𝑦𝑤 is the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement and 𝑑 is the
effective depth.
𝑁
𝑣𝑐 = (𝜏𝑟 . 𝑘(1.2 + 40𝜌) + 0.15 𝐴𝑐)𝑏𝑤 𝑑 ≥ 0 (2.19)
𝑐
𝜏𝑟 = 0.167𝑓𝑐𝑘, 0.05 is the basic design shear, 𝑘 = 1.6 − 𝑑 (𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠) ≥
1.0 accounts for effect of aggregate interlock.
𝐴𝑠
𝜌=𝑏 ≤ 0.02, percentage longitudinal reinforcement, 𝑁𝑐 is an axial load, 𝐴𝑐 is the
𝑤𝑑
gross cross sectional area.
(v) Eurocode 2 (pr EN 1992-1-1:2003)
As the controversy on the estimation of shear strength of reinforcement concrete
beams with stirrups continued, it was realized that some of the models are too
complex to be implemented in a code of practice. This had to be simplified. The

22
Eurocode 2 (2003) was then released to simplify matters and to be adapted in the
Europe. This modified code seeks to solve some of the challenges that practicing
engineers confront with regard to previous code. Cladera and Mari (2007) admits
that, this code proposes a very simple formulation based on only the truss model with
variable inclination angle of struts without any concrete contribution. This code thus
over simplifies the equation resulting into the neglect of important key variables. For
concrete members with vertical shear reinforcement, the shear resistance, 𝑉𝑅𝑑𝑠 is
taken as the lesser of either
𝐴𝑠𝑤
𝑉𝑅,𝑑,𝑠 = 𝑍𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 (2.20)
𝑠
Or
𝑐 𝑤 𝛼 𝑏 𝑍𝑣𝑓
𝑐𝑑
𝑉𝑅𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃+𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃) (2.21)
where 𝑉𝑅,𝑑,𝑠 is the design shear value which can be sustained by the yielding shear
reinforcement, 𝑉𝑅,𝑑,𝑚𝑎𝑥 is the maximum design shear force value which can be
sustained by the member, limited by crushing of the compressive strut, 𝐴𝑠𝑤 is the
cross sectional area of the shear reinforcement within the spacing 𝑠; 𝑍 is the lever
arm that may be considered as 𝑍 = 0.9𝑑 ; 𝑓𝑦𝑑 is the yield strength of the shear
reinforcement, 𝑏𝑤 is the width of web, 𝑓𝑐𝑑 is the design compressive cylinder strength
of the concrete at 28 days, 𝛼𝑐 is the coefficient that takes into account the effect of
normal stress on shear strength. The recommended value for 𝛼𝑐 : 1 for non-
prestressed structures, 𝑣 is the coefficient that takes into account the increase fragility
and the reduction of shear transfer by aggregate interlock with the increase in
compressive strength.
23
𝑣 = 0.6 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑐𝑘 ≤ 60𝑀𝑃𝑎 (2.22)
𝑐𝑘 𝑓
𝑣 = 0.9 − 200 > 0.5 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑐𝑘 > 60𝑀𝑃𝑎 (2.23)
(vi) JSCE (1986)
The Japanese JSCE code (1986) considers the effect of effective depth of
member, the percentage longitudinal reinforcement and the concrete compressive
strength in its model to estimate the concrete contribution to shear strength of RC
members.
1/3
𝑉𝑐 = 0.9𝛽𝑑 𝛽𝜌 𝛽𝑜 𝑓𝑐 𝑏𝑤 𝑑 (2.24)
100 1/4
The depth effect, 𝛽𝑑 = ( ) ≤ 1.5 (2.25)
𝑑
The percentage reinforcement effect, 𝛽𝜌 = (100𝜌)1/3 ≤ 1.5 (2.26)
Shear span to effective depth ratio effect, 𝛽𝑜 = 0.75 + [1.4/(𝑎/𝑑)] (2.27)
The stirrup contribution is derived from the truss mechanism
𝐴𝑠𝑤
𝑉𝑠 = 𝑓𝑦𝑤 (𝑗𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃) (2.28)
𝑠
where 𝐴𝑠𝑤 is the transverse reinforcement area; 𝑠 is the web spacing in the loading
direction and 𝑓𝑦𝑤 is the yield strength of the transverse reinforcement, 𝑗𝑡 is the
distance between top and bottom reinforcing bars and θ is the angle of inclination to
the horizontal of the concrete strut in truss mechanism.
(vii) IAEE (1992)
According to the International Association of Earthquake Engineering,
24
𝑉𝑢 = 𝑏𝑤 𝑗𝑡 𝜌𝑤 𝑓𝑦𝑤 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃(1 − 𝛽)𝑏𝑤 𝐷𝑣𝑓𝑐 /2 (2.29)
where 𝑏𝑤 is the width of the section, 𝑗𝑡 is the distance between the top and bottom
reinforcing bars, 𝜌𝑤 is the shear reinforcement ratio, 𝑓𝑦𝑤 is the strength of the shear
reinforcement, 𝑐𝑜𝑡𝜃 is the angle of the compressive strut in the truss mechanism, 𝐷 is
the overall depth of the section, 𝛽 is the effective factor for the compressive strength
concrete and is given by:
(1+𝑐𝑜𝑡 2 𝛷)𝜌𝑤 𝑓𝑦𝑤

𝛽= (2.30)
𝑣𝑓𝑐
𝐿 𝐿
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 = √(𝐷)2 + 1 − 𝐷 (2.31)
where 𝐿 is the span of the member. For the members without planned yield hinges,
the effectiveness factor 𝑣 is replaced by 𝑣𝑜 given by (𝑀𝑃𝑎):
𝑐 𝑓
𝑣𝑜 = 0.7 − 200 (2.32)
The value of 𝑣𝑜 should not be the minimum of the following values:
𝑗𝑡 𝑣𝑓𝑐
2.0, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 √ −1
𝐷𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃 𝑝𝑤 𝑓𝑤𝑦
2.3..2 Predictive and Analytical Models
The review of the codified approaches shows that most of the shear models
can be computed as the sum of the shear strength contribution from concrete and
transverse reinforcement. However the effect of certain parameters including
displacement ductility and aspect ratio are represented either differently or not
included at all. Some believe that there is an enhancement in shear strength due to
25
the interaction between RC beam component like the stirrup and longitudinal bar.
Since the stirrup supports the re-bars within the concrete the composite behaviour
need to be captured in the models to improve beam action.
Mwafi (2002) argued that the codified shear strength models cannot be
utilized to predict shear strength in analytical studies since they are mainly intended
to provide conservative and safe lower bound to strength. Caldera and Mari (2007)
supported the view that although the new ACI model proposes a very simple
formulation, it presents very scattered results and may be slightly non-conservative
for heavily reinforced members since very important key variables are neglected.
Priestley et al (1993) confirmed by commenting on ASCE-ACI 426 (1973) model
that, codified approaches do not provide consistent estimate of shear capacities and
although can be highly conservative for low density levels (slightly shear reinforced
beams) it may also in some cases provide non-conservative results for high level
ductility RC beams. Researchers have considered the definition of shear strength of
the RC members by including the influence of some parameters such as the flexural
ductility effect by aggregates transfer mechanism. Some of the analytical and
predictive models are discussed below.
(i) Shear strength model proposed by Cladera and Mari (2003)
Cladera and Mari (2003) determined the ultimate shear stress in concrete beams
with and without transverse reinforcement. This model considered the effect of the
longitudinal strain in the web, although it is a conservative simplification of the real
strain. It assumes that in the web the strain is equal to one half the strains in the
tension reinforcement. The transverse reinforcement contribution is given by;
26
𝐴𝑠𝑤
𝑉𝑠 = 𝑑𝑣 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑡 𝜃 (2.33)
𝑠
where; 𝐴𝑠𝑤 is the cross-sectional area of the shear reinforcement, 𝑠 is the spacing of
stirrups, 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 is the design yielding strength of the shear reinforcement, and 𝜃 is the
angle of the compression struts, derived as follows ;
𝜏
𝜃 = 20 + 15𝜀𝑥 + 45 𝑓 ≤ 45° (2.34)
𝑐𝑘
where 𝜀𝑥 is the longitudinal strain in the web, expressed in 1/1000, calculated by the
following expression:
𝑀𝑑
+𝑣𝑑
𝑑𝑣
𝜀𝑥 ≈ 0.5 ∙ 1000 ≤ 1 (2.35)
𝐸𝑠 𝐴𝑠𝑙
𝜏
≤ 0.05 . For the concrete contribution;
𝑓𝑐𝑑
1 1
𝑉𝑐 = [0.17𝜉(100𝜌𝑠 )2 𝑓𝑐 0.2 𝜏 3 ]𝑏𝑤 𝑑 (2.36)
200
𝜉 = 1 + √ 𝑠 ≤ 2.75 is the size effect; 𝑠𝑥 is the lesser of 𝑑𝑣 (= 0.9𝑑)or the vertical
𝑥
between longitudinal distributed reinforcement.
𝐴
𝜌𝑠 = 𝑏 𝑠𝑙𝑑 ≤ 0.04, is the amount of longitudinal reinforcement, 𝑓𝑐 ≤ 100𝑀𝑃𝑎
𝑤
𝑉𝑑
𝜏=𝑏 ≤ 3𝑀𝑃𝑎, and 𝑏𝑤 is web width of the cross-section area in mm.
𝑤 𝑑𝑤
The model proposed a separate equation for beams without web reinforcement with
limit of 60𝑀𝑃𝑎 on the compressive strength.
1
𝑉𝑐 = [0.225𝜉(100𝜌𝑠 )2 𝑓𝑐 0.2 ]𝑏𝑤 𝑑 (2.37)
27
where
200
𝜉 = 1 + √ 𝑠 ≤ 2.75 ; is the size effect (2.38)
𝑥
𝐴𝑠𝑤 is the cross-sectional area of the shear reinforcement, 𝑠 is the spacing of
stirrups, 𝑓𝑦𝑤𝑑 is the design yielding strength of the shear reinforcement, and 𝜃 is the
angle of the compression struts, derived as follows ;
𝐴 𝑐 𝑓
𝜌𝑠 = 𝑏 𝑠𝑙𝑑 ≤ 0.02(1 + 100) is the amount of longitudinal reinforcement
𝑤
𝑓𝑐 ≤ 60𝑀𝑃𝑎 and 𝑏𝑤 is the smallest width of the cross-section area in mm.
(ii) Shear Strength of Ang et al (1989) and Wong et al (1993)
Ang et al, (1989) and Wong et al (1993) developed shear models for columns
based on the assertion that shear strength depended on the level of axial load, flexural
displacement ductility, transverse reinforcement ratio and column aspect ratio. Large
samples of circular columns were tested under uniaxial and biaxial loads. It was
realized that the arch mechanism and concrete contribution term as used in some
proposals such as ASCE-ACI Committee 426 gave higher concrete contributions.
However a shear crack inclination of 45 was assumed for the truss mechanism to
derive the web contribution.
𝜋 𝐴𝑠ℎ 𝑓𝑦𝑤 𝐷
𝑉𝑠𝑖 = 2 ∙ (2.39)
𝑠
3𝑃
𝑉𝑐𝑖 = 0.39𝛼(1 + 𝑓 𝐴 )√𝑓𝑐 𝐴𝑒 (2.40)
𝑐 𝑔
28
𝑀
where 𝛼=(𝑉𝐷) ≥ 1. 𝑂, D is the core diameter measured to the centerline of the
transverse reinforcement which has a cross-sectional area 𝐴𝑠ℎ and yield strength 𝑓𝑦𝑤
This model proposed a reduction of the concrete contribution but increased effect of
truss mechanism according to the following equations.
𝑉𝑐𝑟 = 0.185𝛽√𝑓𝑐 𝐴𝑒 (2.41)
𝑉𝑠𝑟 = 𝑉𝑠𝑖 𝑐𝑜𝑡 𝜃
(2.56)
(1−𝜑)
Where 𝑐𝑜𝑡 𝜃 =√ 𝜑
, 𝜑 is the effective transverse mechanical reinforcement
𝜌𝑠 𝑓𝑦𝑤 2𝐴
ratio=(0.2𝑓 ) 𝜌𝑠 is the ratio of transverse reinforcement = (𝐷𝑠𝑠ℎ) and 𝛽 = 100𝜌𝑠 ≤ 1. A
𝑐
lower limit of 𝜃 = 25° was suggested. Figure 2.19 shows a reduction in shear
strength from Vi to the residual value Vr for circular columns subjected to uniaxial
and biaxial ductility. Rectangular columns are not captured in the model.
𝑉𝑖
Shear force, V
Uniaxial
ductility
𝑉𝑟
Biaxial ductility
1 2 𝜇𝑓 − 1 𝜇𝑓
Displacement ductility, µ
Figure 2.6 Ductility curve Wong et al (1993)
(iii) Shear strength model of Priestley et al (1993)
29
Priestley et al (1993) proposed to calculate the shear strength 𝑉𝑑 , from three
independent components.
𝑉𝑑 = 𝑉𝑐 + 𝑉𝑠 + 𝑉𝑝 (2.42)
where 𝑉𝑐 is the concrete component and 𝑉𝑠 is the truss mechanism component
(transverse reinforcement contribution) and 𝑉𝑝 is the axial load component.
𝑉𝑐 is given by:
𝑉𝑐 = 𝑘√𝑓𝑐 𝐴𝑒 (2.43)
where 𝐴𝑒 is the effective shear area (= 0.8𝐴𝑔 ) and the parameter 𝑘 depends on the
member displacement or curvature ductility, and on whether the member is subjected
to uniaxial or biaxial ductility demand.
For assessing in biaxial bending, the solutions for k in terms of curvature ductility are
given as:
𝑘 = 0.29 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝜇𝛿 ≤ 1.0
(5.00 − 𝜇𝛿 )
𝑘 = 0.10 + 0.19 𝑓𝑜𝑟 1.0 < 𝜇𝛿 ≤ 5.0
4.0
(13.00 − 𝜇𝛿 )
𝑘 = 0.05 + 0.05 𝑓𝑜𝑟 5.0 < 𝜇𝛿 ≤ 13.0
8.0
𝑘 = 0.05 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝜇𝛿 > 13.0
The contribution of transverse reinforcement to shear strength in this model is based
on a truss mechanism using a 300 angle of the inclined between the diagonal
compression strut and the column longitudinal axis. Thus,
𝐴𝑣 𝑓𝑦 𝐷′
𝑉𝑠 = 𝑐𝑜𝑡 30° for rectangular columns (2.44)
𝑠
30
𝜋 𝐴𝑣 𝑓𝑦 𝐷′
𝑉𝑠 = 2 ∙ 𝑐𝑜𝑡 30° for circular columns (2.45)
𝑠
where 𝐴𝑣 total transverse reinforcement area per layer and 𝐷’ is the distance between
centers of the peripheral hoop in the direction parallel to the applied shear force.
The axial load component (arch mechanism), resulting from a diagonal compression
strut is given by:
𝐷−𝑐
𝑉𝑝 = 𝑃𝑡𝑎𝑛 𝛼 = 𝑃 (2.46)
2𝑎
where 𝐷 is the overall section depth, 𝑐 is the neutral axis depth (compression zone),
𝑎 and is the 𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑛 = 𝐿/2 for a column in reversed bending and 𝑖𝑠 𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑜 𝐿
for a cantilever column.
The neutral axis depth changes as the curvature at the critical section varies. As the
axial load contribution decrease and the aspect ratio increases there is a decrease in
the depth of neutral axis such that 𝑉𝑝 is decreased.
2.3.3. General comments on the different shear models

Since most of the predictive models discussed additional factors that contribute to
shear in the RC members, higher values are expected to be obtained. This is verified
by considering trial design of a simply supported beam with assumed attributes as
shown in Figure 2.20 below.
𝑓𝑐𝑢 = 25𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 250mm
2R12
𝑓𝑦 = 250𝑁/𝑚𝑚2 300mm R10@150mm
𝑑 = 262𝑚𝑚
2R16
2
𝐴𝑠 = 402.12𝑚𝑚
31
𝑆𝑣 = 150𝑚𝑚
𝐴𝑠𝑣 = 157𝑚𝑚2
Figure 2.7 Section of beam for verification analysis
Results reveal enhanced shear capacity due to high stirrup contribution. This may be
due to factors like shear strength of RC beams ductility level interaction. The code
methods however, provide conservative and safe lower bound to shear strength.
There is a major similarity in the use of the truss mechanism to estimate the stirrup
contribution. Due to the variation in the empirical relations and the arch mechanism
the concrete contribution vary greatly from model to model.
Table 2.1 Results of the design based on some of the models
Models adapted in codes Stirrup contribution, Concrete contribution,

𝑉𝑠 (𝑘𝑁) 𝑉𝑐 (𝑘𝑁)
ACI (2002) 68.59 51.22
ASCE-ACI (1973) 68.59 30.23
BS8110 (1997) 68.59 36.99
Eurocode 2 (1992) 61.73 52.4
JSCE (1986) 68.03 111.01
IAEE (1992) 62.28 105.94
Predictive models
Cladera and Mari (2003) 118.75 35.10
Wong et al (1993) 168 48.81
Priestley et al (1993) 107.75 87
Regardless of the great research efforts in the prediction of shear strength of concrete
in reinforced concrete beams, there is still not a single empirical code or analytical
equation that accurately predict shear. This shortfall has been attributed to the many
influencing parameters that seem to contribute to shear strength.

32
CHAPTER 3 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Twenty six (26) reinforced concrete beams were cast and tested to investigate the
shear behaviour of reinforced concrete beams with and without transverse
reinforcement made from phyllite aggregates as compared to reinforced concrete
beams made from granite aggregates. Details of material property test procedures,
construction process, test specimen, test set-up and loading system and
instrumentation are fully described.
3.2 MATERIAL SOURCE AND PREPARATION

The phyllite aggregates were obtained from Obuasi (Aglo Gold Ashanti)
mines quarry, as a byproduct of the mining activities. Large rocks were crushed in
the quarry into nominal sizes. The local people also crushed the boulders by hand
into seemingly nominal sizes for use and sale. The granitic coarse aggregates were
obtained from CONSAR Quarry at Barekese in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. For the
purpose of this research, quarried aggregates were transported to the KNUST Civil
Engineering Laboratory for the various tests to be conducted.
Locally manufactured ordinary Portland limestone cement of strength grade
32N/mm2 produced by Ghacem, was used as the binding material. Pit sand won at
Kwamo in the Ashanti region of Ghana which had silt content of about 9% was used
as fine aggregates. Potable water from GWCL was used for the mixing of the
concrete.
33
Table 3.1 Steel test results
Nominal Gauge Gauge Yield Max. load Failure Yield %

size(mm) size area load (KN) load(KN) strength Elongatio
(mm) (mm2) (KN) (N/mm2) n
12 11.90 111.22 39 44 34 350.65 24
12 11.80 109.36 40.5 45 35 370.34 25
12 11.50 103.87 41.5 49 35 401.47 25
6 6.00 28.47 7.0 12 9 245.87 22
6 6.00 28.47 7.5 11 9 263.43 23
6 6.00 28.47 7.0 12 9 245.87 24
12 11.57 105.02 59 70 76 561.78 15
12 11.73 108.07 60 71 75 555.19 13
12 11.77 108.69 58 69 78 533.64 12
10 9.98 78.24 45 54 59 575.16 15
10 10.00 78.50 44 53 58 560.51 15
10 10.05 79.29 43 54 58 542.33 13
Locally available deformed steel bars were used for the tensile reinforcement,
compression reinforcement and the stirrups. Three samples of each reinforcement
size were tested to failure using a Universal Tensile machine. The yield strength of
the mild steel reinforcing bars ranged from 245.87N/mm2 to 401.47N/mm2 with
nominal diameter (size) of 12mm and that for the high yield strength ranged from
533.64 N/mm2 to 575.16 N/mm2. Table 3.1 shows the results of the tested steel bars
used for the experiment.
34
3.3 BEAM GEOMETRY AND DETAILS
3.3.1 Reinforced concrete beams designed in shear without stirrups
Ten (10) RC beams were made of phyllite aggregate and another ten (10) were made
of granite aggregates. Each concrete type was mixed to the ratio, 1:1.5:3 and water-
cement ratio of 0.5. Five different beams with different cross sectional areas and
lengths were considered. Each type of beam was reinforced with 1% and 2% amount
of longitudinal steel reinforcement. There was no shear reinforcement, within the
effective span of the beams. To determine the compressive strength and flexural
strength of the concrete cast, six (6) cubes and three (3) prisms were cast for each
batch made and tested for average values for theoretical analysis.
Beams made from phyllite aggregate concrete were identified as PS1 to PS10.
Granite aggregate concrete beams were labeled as GS1 to GS10. All the beams were
tested having similar shear span to effective depth ratio. Beams PS1, PS2, GS1 and
GS2 had the same cross-sectional dimensions of 140mm x 310mm and total length of
2400mm. Beams PS3, PS4, GS3 and GS4 had cross-sectional dimensions of 140mm
x 265mm and overall length of 2000mm. Beams PS5, PS6, GS5 and GS6 had cross-
sectional dimensions of 110mm x 225mm and total length of 1700mm. Beams PS7,
PS8, GS7 and GS8 have cross-sectional dimensions of 110mm x 184mm and total
length of 1500mm and finally beams PS9, PS10, GS9 and GS10 had cross-sectional
dimensions of 90mm x 150mm and overall length of 1000mm. Other details of the
beams specimen are presented on Figure 3.1 and Table 3.2.
All the beams were cast and placed in wooden moulds and the concrete was
compacted with a shutter vibrator. Beams were left to cure for 28 days after which
35
they were tested. Curing was done using hessian mat laid on the beams and watered
regularly in the atmosphere.
Table 3.2 Specimen description of beam without web reinforcement
Percentage 28 days 28 days

Shear
Longitudinal Concrete Concrete
BEAM BXD Length span/eff.
reinforcement compressive tensile
No. (mm) depth ratio
(mm x mm) ρ (%) strength, strength,
(av/d)
fcu (N/mm2) fcr(N/mm2)
PS1 140 X 310 2400 2.45 1 23.50 3.40
PS2 140 X 310 2400 2.45 2 23.50 3.40
PS3 140 X 265 2000 2.45 1 23.50 3.40
PS4 140 X 265 2000 2.45 2 23.50 3.40
PS5 110 X 225 1700 2.48 1 23.00 3.38
PS6 110 X 225 1700 2.48 2 23.00 3.38
PS7 110 X 184 1500 2.46 1 23.00 3.38
PS8 110 X 184 1500 2.46 2 23.00 3.38
PS9 90 X 150 1000 2.35 1 23.00 3.38
PS10 90 X 150 1000 2.35 2 23.00 3.38
GS1 140 X 310 2400 2.45 1 27.10 2.70
GS2 140 X 310 2400 2.45 2 27.10 2.70
GS3 140 X 265 2000 2.45 1 27.10 2.70
GS4 140 X 265 2000 2.45 2 27.10 2.70
GS5 110 X 225 1700 2.48 1 26.40 3.40
GS6 110 X 225 1700 2.48 2 26.40 3.40
GS7 110 X 184 1500 2.46 1 26.40 3.40
GS8 110 X 184 1500 2.46 2 26.40 3.40
GS9 90 X 150 1000 2.35 1 26.4 3.40
GS10 90 X 150 1000 2.35 2 26.40 3.40
36
Figure 3.1 Reinforcement details of beams in shear without shear links
37
3.3.2 Reinforced concrete beams designed in shear with stirrups
A total of six (6) reinforced concrete beams with transverse reinforcement made
from phyllite aggregates only were cast and tested. Concrete was mixed to the ratio,
1:1.5:3 and water-cement ratio of 0.5. All the six beams had the same cross-sectional
dimensions of 140 x 265 mm and length of 2000mm. The beams contained
longitudinal reinforcement of 2% but only varied with the amount of transverse
reinforcement. To determine the compressive strength and flexural strength of the
concrete cast, six (6) cubes and three (3) prisms were cast for each batch made and
tested for average values for theoretical analysis.
The beams were identified as PSL1-PSL6. Beams PSL1, PSL3 and PSL5 had stirrup
spacing of 250, 150 and 100 respectively subjected to monolithic loading. Beams
PSL2, PSL4 and PSL6 also had stirrup spacing of 250, 150 and 100mm respectively
but subjected to cyclic loading. Other details of the beam specimens are shown in
Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Specimen description of beam with web reinforcement
Shear Percentage 28 days 28 days

span/eff. Shear Longitudinal Concrete Concrete
BEAM BXDXL
depth spacing reinforcement compressive tensile
No. (mm x mm x mm) ratio strength, strength,
(mm) ρ (%)
(av/d) fcu (N/mm2) fcr(N/mm2)
PSL1 140 x265x2000 2.45 250 2 23.65 3.40
PSL2 140 x265x2000 2.45 250 2 23.65 4.00
PSL3 140 x265x2000 2.45 150 2 23.65 2.50
PSL4 140 x265x2000 2.45 150 2 23.65 3.40
PSL5 140 x265x2000 2.48 100 2 23.65 4.00
PSL6 140 x265x2000 2.48 100 2 23.65 2.50
38
Stirrup spacing R6@250mm
100 1800mm 100

m
(PSL 1, PSL2)
100 1800mm 100

m
(PSL 3, PSL4)
100 1800mm 100

m
(PSL 5, PSL6)
140mm
265mm R6@250mm
6R12
Figure 3.2 Reinforcement details of beams in shear with shear links
39
3.5.2 Test setup and Instrumentation
The beams were prepared before testing by cleaning all debris and painting to enable
easy identification and measurement of cracks. The specimens were setup in a
loading steel frame with a hand operated hydraulic jack. A third point loading system
was adopted for testing of the beams. This setup is as shown in Figure 3.3. The loads
were applied using a Porto-Power hydraulic jack of model P-76 with a gauge that
reads to a maximum capacity of 23ton. Loads were applied in monotonic increments
of 2kN to failure. Central deflections of the simply supported beams were measured
with a dial gauge fixed at the bottom. Crack development was closely monitored to
ascertain first flexural crack and first shear crack. Crack widths were measured at
each load increment on the concrete surface using a crack microscope reading to
0.02mm.
Loading head of hydraulic jack
Load Spreader
Test Beam
Dial gauge
Support
L/3 L/3 L/3
Figure 3.3 Schematic diagram of experimental setup
40
CHAPTER 4 SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF REINFORCED
CONCRETE (RC) BEAMS MADE FROM PHYLLITE
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Structural behaviour of RC beams in shear is an important factor in the determination
of suitability of aggregates for concrete production. Shear strength of RC beams is
estimated to range from 35% to 80% of compressive strength. Considering
reinforced concrete beams in bending and shear, the major contribution of concrete
to the strength of the beam is in shear. The Mechanism of flexural failure of a
reinforced concrete beam is much simpler to understand as compared to shear failure.
Factors influencing the shear capacity of beams include shear span to depth ratio
(a/d), tension steel ratio (ρ), compressive strength of concrete (fc΄), size of coarse
aggregate, density of concrete, tensile strength of concrete, support conditions, clear
span to depth ratio (L/d), number of layers of tension reinforcement, grade of tension
reinforcement and end anchorage of tension reinforcement and many more. Basically
the overall shear capacity is considered to be provided by (1) Concrete in the
compression zone, (2) Aggregate interlock across crack planes, (3) Dowel action of
longitudinal reinforcement and in the case of beams with transverse reinforcement
(4) Stirrups. Clearly, the type of aggregate or concrete can affect the overall
behaviour of reinforced concrete beam; thus the need to characterize the shear
strength of phyllite aggregates concrete. This section discusses results obtained from
testing reinforced phyllite concrete beams with and without transverse reinforcement.
Ten (10) beams made of phyllite concrete without transverse reinforcement are
compared to 10 beams with the same dimensional properties and details but made of
granite aggregate concrete. In order to investigate the effect of transverse
reinforcement in reinforced concrete made from phyllite aggregates, another set of

41
six (6) beams made of only phyllite concrete with transverse reinforced are also
discussed.
Strength characteristics of the beams with respect to deflections, cracking, failure
modes and failure loads are considered. Theoretical failure loads and analyses are
initially done based on only BS 8110 (1997) and compared with the experimental
first crack, first shear crack and failure loads. Deflection behaviour, cracking and
maximum crack width of RC beams from the two different aggregate materials are
also discussed. Further analysis and comparisons are made with respect to shear
strength prediction made by other shear equations.
4.2 RC BEAMS WITHOUT TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT
4.2.1 Ultimate strength

A summary of the experimental results are presented in Table 6.1. The self-weight of
the concrete beams and the spreader beam were ignored for simplicity. In all the
beams, flexural cracks appeared first in the pure bending portion followed by
diagonal tension cracks. The first flexural crack loads were dependent on the type of
concrete and were marginally higher for all the granite beams in comparison to the
corresponding phyllite beam results. First flexural crack loads varied from 28% to
40% of the failure load for phyllite concrete beams compared to 31% to 56% of
granite concrete beams. The fact that flexural cracks occurred first in the phyllite
concrete beams resulted in more flexural cracks in those beams compared to the
corresponding granite concrete beams. In the granite beams, the first flexural crack
load increased with increasing beam size and for higher percentage reinforcement as
observed by others (Noghabai, 2000, Shioya et al, 1989). The phyllite beams
however, did not exhibit such trend. For beam pairs of same dimensions and concrete
42
type (eg. PS1-PS2 and GS1-GS2), the 2% longitudinal reinforcement beams resulted
in higher first diagonal crack load than 1% beams.
Table 4.1 Experimental and theoretical loads of tested beams in shear
Beam Experimental load, (𝑘𝑁) 𝑃𝑐𝑟 𝑃𝑠 Failure mode

𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑡
No. First First Failure Number Maximum
flexural shear load, of cracks crack
crack, crack at failure width at
Ps Pult failure
Pcr
PS1 14 40 68 0.29 0.59 Shear/anchorage 10 0.14
PS5 14 28 50 0.32 0.77 Shear 6 0.66
PS6 14 46 50 0.32 0.92 Shear 4 2.00
PS7 16 24 40 0.40 0.60 Shear 6 0.96
PS8 14 28 46 0.39 0.61 Shear 2 0.40
PS9 12 18 28 0.33 0.50 Shear 4 0.80
PS10 14 24 40 0.40 0.60 Shear 6 1.00
GS1 30 40 74 0.41 0.54 Shear 10 1.10
GS2 30 48 86 0.35 0.56 Shear 3 0.80
GS3 32 42 66 0.48 0.64 Shear 12 1.70
GS4 32 50 98 0.33 0.51 Shear 2 1.10
GS5 22 36 52 0.42 0.69 Shear 8 0.40
GS6 28 42 52 0.54 0.81 Shear 2 0.30
GS7 22 32 46 0.48 0.70 Shear 6 1.20
GS8 26 40 54 0.31 0.48 Shear/anchorage 3 1.84
GS9 14 24 42 0.33 0.57 Shear 9 0.86
GS10 18 26 48 0.56 0.81 Shear 6 0.16
43
First diagonal shear cracks were developed between 50% and 92% of the failure load
for phyllite concrete beams whilst that of granite concrete beams varied from 48% to
81%. This indicates that phyllite concrete beams had lower post-diagonal cracking
shear resistance compared to granite concrete beams. The post-diagonal cracking
shear resistance (i.e. Pult minus Ps) showed that granite concrete beams in 70% of the
cases mobilized higher capacities compared to the corresponding phyllite beams.
This is because the post-diagonal cracking shear resistance is derived from aggregate
interlock plus dowel action which are all affected by the poor elongation properties
and flaky nature of the phyllite aggregates. All the beams failed in shear failure
modes as expected in beams with shear span/effective depth ratio between 1.0 and
2.5.
Results further reveal that with increase in the amount of longitudinal reinforcement
from 1% to 2%, the first diagonal (shear) cracking load increased. This agrees with
what Taylor (1974), Tempos (2002), and other researchers found. It thus confirms
the fact that increase in tension reinforcement increases shear strength. It also
verified the findings of Imran et al (2007) that for a constant value of a/d ratio, the
shear capacity increased with an increased longitudinal reinforcement ratio.
4.2.2 Load deflection behaviour

The load versus mid-span deflection curves of the beams are shown in Figure 4.2 and
Figure 4.3. The initial linear portion of the curves before first flexural cracking
indicates the stiffness of the beams was intact and they were independent of the
concrete type for corresponding beam types. As was expected, beams with 1%
tension reinforcement deflected more than beams with 2% reinforcement in both
concrete types (Figure 4.2). Decrease in longitudinal reinforcement ratio reduces the
44
rigidity of the beams and as a result wider cracks are generated. This causes
reduction in the flexural resistance of the beams, hence beams deflect more. In most
of the cases, the granite beams failed at higher shear loads and deflections when
corresponding beam pairs of different concrete types are compared (Figure 4.3). This
could be as a result of better bonding between the granite aggregates and longitudinal
steel which assured a more efficient load transfer system in the granite beams.
Therefore, higher ultimate load and deflection capacities could be derived from the
granite aggregate beams.
90 90
80 PS2 80 GS2
GS1
70 70
PS1
60 60
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MIdspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm)
90 90
80 PS4 80
70 PS3 70
60 60 GS3
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112
Midspan Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.2(a) Load-deflection curves of beams
45
60 60
55 PS6 PS5 55
50 50 GS6
GS5
45 45
40 40
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
Midspan Deflection (mm) Midspan Deflection (mm)
90 90
GS8
80 80
70 70
60 60
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
50 50
PS8 GS7
40 PS7 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
45
45
40 PS10 GS9
40
35
35
30
Load (KN)
PS9 30 G10
Load (KN)
25
25
20
20
15
15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8
Figure 4.2(b) Load-deflection curves of beams
46
100
80
GS1 90
70 80 GS2
PS1 PS2
60 70
Load (KN)
50 60
Load (KN)
40 50
40
30
30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 8 10
70 120
GS3 PS3
60 100
GS4
50
80 PS4
40
Load (KN)
Load (KN) 60
30
40
20
20
10
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
80 60
GS5
70 50 PS6
GS6
60
40
50 PS5
40 30
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
30 20
20
10
10
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4
Figure 4.3(a) Load-deflection curves of beams
47
50 90
45 GS7 80 GS8
40 PS7 70
35
60
30
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
50
25
40
20
15 30
PS8
10 20
5 10
0 0
0 2 4 0 2 4 6 8
45 45
GS9 PS10
40 40
35 35
PS9 30 G10
30
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6
Figure 4.3(b) Comparison of load-deflection behaviour of phyllite and granite RC

beams
4.2.3 Deflection under service loads

Adopting the design limits for deflection from BS8110. Table 4.2 present deflections
of the tested beams under service loads and compares with the design segment. As
already noted, the maximum service loads are obtained by dividing the ultimate loads
by 1.5 with its corresponding deflection taken from the load deflection curves of the
tested beams. The ratio of the experimental service deflection to the required limit
48
deflection by BS8110 for both phyllite concrete and granite concrete beams range
from 23% to 77% with an average of 41% and 43% respectively. Both types of
concrete beams did not show much variation in terms of service deflection. This
confirms the fact that BS8110 predicts deflection adequately. Deflection behaviour
of phyllite and granite made concrete beams are similar.
Table 4.2 Service load deflections
Beam No. Service Experimental BS8110 λES/λBS

Load, service deflection, limit, λBS
(kN) λES (mm) (mm)
PS1 45.33 2.80 8.4 0.33

PS2 52.00 2.75 8.4 0.33
PS3 44.00 3.19 7.2 0.44
PS4 53.33 2.94 7.2 0.41
PS5 33.33 2.60 6 0.43
PS6 33.33 1.35 6 0.23
PS7 26.67 1.42 4.8 0.30
PS8 30.67 1.10 4.8 0.23
PS9 24.00 2.74 3.6 0.76
PS10 26.67 2.32 3.6 0.64
GS1 46.67 1.93 8.4 0.23
GS2 57.33 4.00 8.4 0.48
GS3 45.33 2.25 7.2 0.31
GS4 65.33 3.50 7.2 0.49
GS5 34.67 1.90 6 0.32
GS6 34.67 1.90 6 0.32
GS7 30.67 1.50 4.8 0.31
GS8 36.00 1.48 4.8 0.31
GS9 28.00 2.78 3.6 0.77
49
GS10 32.00 1.90 3.6 0.53
4.2.4 Cracking characteristics of phyllite and granite concrete beams

In view of durability problems which cause concrete components to fail prematurely,
cracking characteristic of phyllite and granite concrete beams were investigated.
During loading, flexural cracks propagated first in the midspan and the number of
cracks also increased and became wider with increase in loading. With further
increase in loads, cracks developed in the shear region extending diagonally toward
the loading point. Other new diagonal cracks began to form separately in locations
closer to the supports. With the aid of crack microscope, crack width at each load
increment was recorded. The crack pattern in Figure 4.4 shows that GS3 obtained
greater number of crack after failure than the PS3 beam. This means that the granite
concrete beams had greater resistance to crack than the phyllite concrete which can
be attributed to the inadequate bonding of the phyllite concrete to reinforcement for
efficient stress transfer.
Figure 4.4(a) Crack pattern in beams GS3 after failure
Figure 4.4(b) Crack pattern in beams PS3 after failure
50
Figure 4.5 shows graphs of load against crack-width for all tested beams. The graphs
reveal that the phyllite aggregate developed wider cracks than the granite concrete
beams. This could be explained by the fact that aggregate interlock which plays a
major role in the shear transfer mechanism is influenced by frictional forces that
develop across diagonal cracks. These frictional forces are at a minimum in phyllite
concrete as a result of the physical characteristics of the aggregates thus leading to
wider cracks. The presence of wider cracks also contributed to low shear strengths
observed in the phyllite concrete beams as compared to the granite concrete beams.
The graphs in the Figure 4.5 also reveal that beams with 1% longitudinal
reinforcement developed wider cracks than those of 2% longitudinal reinforcement.
This is a confirmation of the fact that higher percentage of longitudinal
reinforcement increased the resistance for the crack to open wider to reduce shear
crack and as such enhance aggregates interlock effect to increase shear strength.
The number of cracks at failure varied from 2-10 in phyllite concrete beams and 2-12
in granite concrete beams with corresponding respective crack width ranges of 0.12-
2.0 mm (for phyllite concrete beams) and 0.16-1.84mm (for granite concrete
beams). There was no notable trend in the distribution of cracks and crack widths.
High number of cracks did not necessarily result in smaller crack widths.
All the beams failed in shear as expected in beams with shear-span to effective depth
ratio of between 1.0 and 2.5. This failure mode was independent of flexural crack
formation.
51
60 60
GS5 GS6
50 50
PS5 PS6
40 40
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Crack Width (mm) Crack Width (mm)
50
70
45 GS7
40 60
PS7 GS8
35 50
Load (KN)
30
Load (KN)
PS8
40
25
20 30
15
20
10
5 10
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
45 45
40 GS9 40
35 35 GS10 PS10
30 30
Load (KN)
Load (KN)
25 PS9 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Figure 4.5 Load-crack width behaviours
4.2.5 Shear resistance characteristics of phyllite and granite concrete beam

According to design code approaches, the ultimate shear load of concrete is related to
its compressive strength. One of such several code relationships is that shear load is
52
directly proportional to the square root of the compressive strength of concrete. In
order to obtain a fair comparison of ultimate shear loads for concrete beams of
different compressive strengths, it is rather logical that the influence of different
strengths is taken into account. Therefore, the ultimate failure loads of the beams
were divided by the square root of the compressive strength to obtain the normalized
ultimate shear load.
𝑃𝑛 = 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑡 /√𝑓𝑐 (4.1)
The normalized shear loads were further divided by the cross sectional areas of each
beam to obtain normalized shear stresses.
𝑝𝑛 = 𝑃𝑛 /𝑏𝐷 (4.2)
Results shown in Figure 6.6 reveal that, generally for all the different beam depths
(ranging from 150mm to 310mm) the phyllite aggregate beams produced lower
normalized ultimate shear stresses than the corresponding granite aggregate beams in
both 1% and 2% reinforcement ratios.
0.80 PC 1%
Normalized shear stress (Sqrt
0.70 PC 2%
0.60 GC 1%
0.50 GC 2%
(MPa))
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330
Depth of beams (mm)
Figure 4.6 Effect of beam depth on normalized shear stress for PC and GC
53
Normalized shear stress decreased as the beams depth increased from 150mm to
310mm. It could be concluded that RC phyllite aggregate concrete beams behave
normally, however granite (normal) aggregate concrete exhibit higher resistance to
shear.
4.2.6 Comparison of test results with various design approaches

The experimental failure loads were compared with the shear resistance of the beams
calculated using five (5) design code models. The design approaches considered
were BS8110, ACI 318-02, EC 2, NZS 3101 and AS 3600.
The performance of the design approaches in predicting shear strength of phyllite
and granite concrete having 1% and 2% as compared to the experimental results are
presented in Table 4.4. All shear values have been normalized by dividing the shear
stress by the square root of the compressive strength of concrete. Since assumed
concrete strength will almost always be different from the actual strength, initial
normalization may be valid from this point of view. In all approaches, it can be seen
that beams with 2% longitudinal reinforcement ratio recorded higher strength than
beams with 1% in both phyllite concrete and granite concrete.
The experimental results revealed similar trend in ultimate strength. BS8110
and AS 3600 codes have very conservative equations for the deeper beams but the
ACI proved most conservative for the smaller beams predicting low shear strength as
compared to the rest. The average 𝑣𝑒𝑥𝑝 /𝑣𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑 value of the EC2 is about 1.17 for
phyllite beams and 1.23 for granite beams having 2% longitudinal reinforcement.
The values increased to 1.28 and 1.35 for phyllite beams and granite beams
respectively having 1% longitudinal reinforcement. These results agree with the
comment made by Cladera and Mari (2004) that the EC 2 over-predicts shear
54
strength of concrete of RC beams with high amount of longitudinal reinforcement.
This conclusion can also be made for NZS 3101 since it followed the same trend.
The ratio of normalized experimental stress (𝑣𝑒𝑥𝑝 ) and the predicted stress (𝑣𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑑 )has
been computed for all the beams and for every expression considered
Table 4.3 Summary of different shear equations (units MPa, mm)
Eqn. Code Equation
1 BS8110 (1997) 𝑣𝑐 = 0.79𝜌1/3 (400/𝑑)1/4 (𝑓𝑐𝑢 /25)1/3
𝑉𝑢 𝑑
2 ACI Code (2005) 𝑣𝑐 = (0.158√𝑓𝑐𝑢 + 17.14 )
𝑀
𝑑 2.5𝑑
3 EC2 (1990) 𝑣𝑐 = 0.0525 (1.6 − )( )(1.2 + 40𝜌)𝑓𝑐𝑢 2/3
1000 𝑎
4 NZS 3101 (1995) 𝑣𝑐 = (0.07 + 10𝜌)√𝑓𝑐𝑢
𝑑 2𝑑 𝐴𝑠 𝑓𝑐𝑢
5 AS 3600 (1994) 𝑣𝑐 = 1.1(1.6 − )( )( ) ≤ 0.2𝑓𝑐𝑢 𝑏𝑑;
1000 𝑎 𝑏𝑑
𝑣𝑐 : Shear strength provided of concrete; 𝑓𝑐𝑢 : Concrete compressive strength; 𝑏: Web width; 𝑑: Effective depth;
𝑉𝑢 : Shear force; M : External moment; 𝜌:Longitudinal reinforcement ratio; 𝐴𝑠 : Amount of longitudinal
reinforcement; 𝑎: Shear span;
55
Table 4.4 Prediction of various design approaches
Normalized shear stress = v/(fcu)0.5 Shear strength ratios vexp/vpred

BEA
M BS811 BS811
ACI EC NZS AUS ACI EC NZS AUS
vexp 0 0
PS1 0.32 0.25 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.32 1.31 1.33 1.28 1.38 1.49
PS2 0.37 0.31 0.27 0.33 0.38 0.37 1.20 1.37 1.14 0.97 1.35
PS3 0.37 0.25 0.24 0.27 0.23 0.37 1.45 1.53 1.38 1.59 1.61
PS4 0.44 0.32 0.27 0.34 0.38 0.44 1.39 1.67 1.30 1.18 1.55
PS5 0.42 0.25 0.22 0.26 0.22 0.42 1.67 1.88 1.63 1.88 1.88
PS6 0.42 0.32 0.25 0.34 0.37 0.42 1.32 1.68 1.25 1.14 1.49
PS7 0.41 0.27 0.22 0.26 0.23 0.41 1.55 1.87 1.57 1.81 1.81
PS8 0.47 0.34 0.25 0.35 0.38 0.47 1.41 1.91 1.37 1.25 1.65
PS9 0.43 0.24 0.20 0.28 0.19 0.43 1.77 2.21 1.57 2.30 1.81
PS10 0.62 0.31 0.22 0.35 0.31 0.62 2.01 2.84 1.74 2.01 2.06
GS1 0.33 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.33 1.36 1.50 1.36 1.40 1.54
GS2 0.38 0.30 0.24 0.31 0.38 0.38 1.26 1.56 1.23 1.00 1.42
GS3 0.34 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.34 1.38 1.59 1.35 1.48 1.53
GS4 0.51 0.31 0.24 0.33 0.38 0.51 1.63 2.11 1.56 1.34 1.81
GS5 0.41 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.22 0.41 1.65 2.03 1.67 1.82 1.87
GS6 0.41 0.31 0.23 0.32 0.37 0.41 1.31 1.80 1.28 1.10 1.48
GS7 0.44 0.26 0.20 0.25 0.23 0.44 1.70 2.24 1.77 1.94 1.98
GS8 0.52 0.33 0.22 0.33 0.38 0.52 1.59 2.32 1.58 1.37 1.85
GS9 0.61 0.24 0.18 0.26 0.19 0.61 2.54 3.44 2.31 3.22 2.60
GS10 0.69 0.30 0.20 0.34 0.31 0.69 2.30 3.52 2.05 2.25 2.36
The average (AVG) of these ratios, the standard deviation (STD), and the coefficient
of variation (COV) are shown in Table 4.5. The lowest COV implies that a particular
data set has the lowest variation in the accuracy with the geometrical and material
properties of the beam, hence the greater the uniformity in the prediction. For the
limited data obtained from this experimental work, the lowest COV in using the
56
various codes for phyllite concrete beams and granite concrete beams respectively
were computed using the EC 2 (COV=0.14 and 0.22) and AS3600 (COV=0.13 and
0.21). Nevertheless, the least standard deviation was recorded by EC2 for both
phyllite beams and granite beams as 0.17 and 0.28 respectively. This suggests
significant improvement in the prediction uniformity of EC2 code for providing a
shear strength expression. Considering the standard deviation and covariance
measures of the ratios of the normalized experimental shear stress to the predicted
shear, all the codes seem to predict the phyllite better. It should be noted that initial
normalization of shear strength assumed that influence of concrete strength, is
similar for all the approaches. This may not actually be the case since each equation
presents a unique degree of dependence on concrete compressive strength (Table
4.3).
Table 4.5 Statistical error measure of shear approaches
EQUATIO
N PHYLLITE BEAMS GRANITE BEAMS
AVG STD COV AVG STD COV
BS8110 1.51 0.25 0.16 1.67 0.43 0.26
ACI 318 1.67 0.40 0.24 1.83 0.60 0.33
EC2 1.23 0.17 0.14 1.29 0.28 0.22
NZS 3101 1.24 0.35 0.28 1.35 0.58 0.39
AS 3600 1.55 0.20 0.13 1.71 0.36 0.21
However we can be certain that shear strength characteristics of phyllite concrete
compares well with granite aggregates and may even be more conservative than that
of the granite concrete. The phyllite concrete had low compressive strength and they
eventually recorded lower ultimate strength capacity. This confirms the fact that
57
concrete compressive strength is a major influencing factor in shear contribution in
reinforced concrete elements.
4.3 RC BEAMS MADE FROM PHYLLITE CONCRETE WITH

TRANSVERSE (WEB) REINFORCEMENT
Experimental results of the six (6) beams with stirrups tested under monotonic and
cyclic loading are presented in the section. Discussions are made on the ultimate
failure load for different web spacing, comparing them to the behaviour of a beam
with the same beam size but without web reinforcement. The effect of cyclic loading,
on deflection and cracking behaviour of the beams are also analyzed.
4.3.1 Experimental load characteristics of phyllite concrete beams

Table 4.6 presents the experimental loads of beams PS4 (no links), PSL1 and PSL2
(R6 @ 250, monotonic and cyclic respectively), PSL3 and PSL4 (R6 @ 150,
monotonic and cyclic respectively) and PSL5 and PSL6 (R6 @ 100, monotonic and
cyclic respectively). The actual first flexural crack load for PS4 (no shear links) was
10 kN as compared to values ranging from 2.8 to 4.0 times for corresponding beams
(PSL1-PSL6) with various shear links spacing. This implies that the presence of
shear links influenced the formation of first flexural cracks in phyllite aggregate
beams when only 2% tension reinforcement beams (PS4, PSL1-6) are considered.
The first diagonal shear load for beam PS4 of 66 kN was higher than or equal to
those of corresponding beams (PSL1-PSL6) with shear reinforcement tested either
by monotonic or limited cyclic loading. This indicates that first diagonal shear crack
is independent of the shear contribution of shear links and mode of application of the
load. The first shear crack in beam PS4 occurred at 83% of the failure load whilst
those of beams with shear links (PSL1-PSL6) ranged from 42-58% of the failure
loads whether subjected to monotonic or limited cyclic loading. In this case, the
58
phyllite concrete beam PS4 without shear links had a lower post-diagonal cracking
shear resistance of 14kN compared to corresponding phyllite beams with shear links
PSL1-PSL6 with value ranging 38-64 kN. As expected, post-cracking shear
resistance increased with decreasing stirrup spacing.
Table 4.6 Experimental loads of tested beams in shear
Experimental load, (𝑘𝑁)
Beam First First 𝑃𝑐𝑟 𝑃𝑠

Failure
flexural
No.
shear load, 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑡 𝑃𝑢𝑙𝑡
crack, crack
Ps Pult
Pcr
PS4 10 66 80 0.30 0.83
PSL1 28 44 106 0.26 0.42
PSL2 26 48 86 0.30 0.56
PSL3 38 56 96 0.40 0.58
PSL4 36 58 114 0.31 0.51
PSL5 36 64 128 0.28 0.50
PSL6 40 68 118 0.34 0.58
It is very evident that with the inclusion of stirrups in the reinforced phyllite concrete
beams, as the stirrups work to enhance the shear strength of the beams, the weak
strength phyllite concrete limits the realization of the complete effect of the stirrup
action. Since bond between concrete and main bars have excellent shear stress
induced, less amount of web reinforcement yields lower load level to resist
horizontal crack.
59
4.3.2 Load-deflection behaviour
The load-deflection characteristics of four beams with same dimensions and tension
reinforcement (2%) but different shear reinforcement; PS4 (no links), PSL1 (R6 @
250), PSL3 (R6 @ 150) and PSL5 (R6 @ 100) are shown in Figure 4.7. The beams
had similar concrete compressive strength but slightly different flexural strengths as
were subjected to monotonic static loading.
140
PSL5
120
PSL1
100
PSL3
80
Load (kN)
PS4
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 4.7 Load-deflection behaviour of phyllite beams with stirrups
The initial stiffness, ultimate loads and ultimate displacements of the curves
generally increased with increasing shear reinforcement (or link spacing). This
implies that confinement of concrete by shear reinforcement and increasing effect of
shear reinforcement per unit volume influences the strength and ductility
characteristics of phyllite concrete beams with same longitudinal tension
reinforcement.
60
However, the ultimate load and displacement of PSL1 (R6@250 link spacing) was
higher than that of PSL3 (R6@150 link spacing) which is counterintuitive. The only
explanation could be due to the higher flexural strength of concrete in PSL1 as
compared to PSL3. This reveals that reinforced phyllite concrete beams behave
similarly as reinforced normal concrete apart from the fact that the compressive
strength of the phyllite concrete is weak.
4.3.3 Cracking and failure modes of specimens

The predominant failure mode of all the 6 beams was shear. Table 4.7 present failure
mode observed during the tests. This failure mode was independent of flexural crack
formation. It was observed that failure does not occur suddenly as the case of beam
without web reinforcement. It is possible that the larger amount of web
reinforcement delayed crack development since the web reinforcement has high
possibility to intersect with crack. This makes is difficult to judge when the shear
crack becomes complete path to cause failure. All the beams showed anchorage bond
failure in addition to the shear failure due to high stress concentration near the
supports (Figure4.8). Structural codes of practice (BS8110, 1997, ACI318, 2002,
EC2, 2002) give recommendation for hook or bend at supports to fulfil anchorage
requirements. Anchorage bond stress and the contact area of the bar are employed in
prescribing anchorage lengths. In the event of very high concentration of anchorage
stress in the anchorage zone, the mutual bond between the concrete and reinforcing
bar interfaces is destroyed. This adverse condition is often averted in design by the
provision of greater anchorage lengths than usually permitted (Lim et al, 2006). It is
therefore recommended that in phyllite concrete beams, greater anchorage length
than the calculated length based on anchorage bond stress and contact area of the bar
be used as done in other non-conventional aggregate concrete beams where

61
anchorage failure occurred (Swamy and Adepegba, 1969). In view of durability
problems which cause concrete components to fail prematurely, cracking
characteristic of phyllite concrete beams were investigated. During loading, flexural
cracks propagated first in the midspan and the number of cracks also increase and
become wider with increase in loading.
Table 4.7 Experimental failure modes
Beam
No.
Failure mode Number of Maximum
cracks at crack width
failure at failure
PS4 Shear/anchorage 2 0.52
PSL1 Shear 23 3.93
PSL2 Shear 18 5.82
PSL3 Shear/anchorage 19 4.34
With further increase in loads, cracks develop in the shear region extending
diagonally toward the loading point. Other new diagonal cracks begin to form
separately from locations closer to the supports. The number of cracks at failure
varied from 2-10 in phyllite concrete beams without stirrups (PS1-PS10). There was
a notable trend in the distribution of cracks and crack widths. More number of cracks
(11-28) and wider crack widths (3.93mm-9.82mm) were observed in the beams with
shear reinforcement (PSL1-PSL6). As observed by other researchers (Hassa et al,

62
2008, Teo et al, 2006, Lim et al, 2006, Kumar et al, 2007), a high number of cracks
resulted in smaller crack widths. Beams subjected to cyclic loads (PSL2, PSL4 and
PSL6), exhibited wider crack widths as compared to corresponding beams subjected
to monotonic loading (PSL1, PSL3 and PSL5).
Figure 4.8 Crack pattern in beams PSL1-PSL6 and PS4
63
Figure 4.9 shows graphs of load against crack width for corresponding beams PS4
(no links), PSL1 (R6@ 250mm), PSL3 (R6@150mm) and PSL5 (R6@100mm) all
subject to monotonic loading. The graphs reveal that the phyllite aggregate beams
developed wider cracks as steel stirrup spacing increased.
140
PSL5
120
PSL1
100
PS4 PSL3
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Crack width (mm)
Figure 4.9 Graph of load against crack width for PS4, PSL1, PSL3 and PSL5
This is because aggregate interlock which plays a major role in the shear transfer
mechanism is influenced by frictional forces that develop across diagonal cracks.
These frictional forces are at a minimum in phyllite concrete as a result of the
physical characteristics of the aggregates thus leading to wider cracks. The presence
of wider cracks also affected ultimate shear capacity of concrete beams. An increase
in crack widths at points above the main reinforcement weakens the aggregate
64
interlock capacity and reduces concrete shear capacity (Collins, 1993, Bazant and
Kim, 1984, Bazant and Kzemi, 1991, Walraven and Lehwalter, 1994).
4.3.4 Effect of cyclic loading

The effect of limited cyclic loading on the behaviour of phyllite beams with stirrups
(PSL1-PSL6) was studied. Three (3) of the beams with stirrups (PSL2, PSL4 and
PSL6) were subjected to 20 cycles of loading at service loads and their load-
deflection behaviour studied. This was to investigate the effect of limited cyclic
loading on the stiffness and strength of the beams. The individual load-deflection
curves of the monotonically loaded beams without stirrups (PSL1, PSL3and PSL5)
are expected to envelope the corresponding cyclically loaded beams (PSL2, PSL4
and PSL6) to indicate no loss of structural integrity. For beams with low shear
reinforcement, in this case beams with stirrup specifications of R6@250mm and
R6@150mm (PSL1-PSL4), initial stiffness of the beams remained constant beyond
cracking of concrete and up to yielding of reinforcement for both monotonic and
cyclic loading (Figure 4.10). Beyond the yielding of reinforcement, the stiffness of
the beams degraded and their strengths deteriorated as a result of the lower shear
failure capacity of the shear reinforcement. However, there was an increase in
ultimate deflection probably as a result of the strain hardening and ductility of the
steel reinforcement. For the corresponding beams of high shear reinforcement (PSL5
and PSL6), subjected to respective monotonic and cyclic loads, the stiffness and
strengths did not change up the point of failure of PSL6 (Figure 4.11). As a result of
hysteretic energy dissipation, the beam subjected to cyclic load (PSL6) failed at a
lower ultimate load and deflection compared to PSL5 which was subjected to
monotonic loading. It was therefore observed that cyclic loading affected the
stiffness, strength and deformation of the phyllite beams with shear reinforcement.
65
120
PSL1
100
PSL2
Load (kN) 80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Midspan deflection (mm)
120
PSL4
100
PSL3
80
Load (kN)
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
140
PSL6
PSL5
120
100
Load (kN)
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
66
Cyclic loading reduced the bondbetween the longitudinal reinforcement and the
concrete. This caused most of the beams tested under cyclic loading to fail by
diagonal tension. During the load cycles, there were several flexural cracks present,
which opened and closed at each cycle, but these cracks remained almost vertical.
Due to concrete volume dilation and spalling, beam specimens under cyclic loads
failed with wider cracks but few numbers of cracks (see Figure 4.8). Such behaviour
in phyllite concrete which is generally weak may cause severe durability and strength
degradation problems.
4.4 CONCLUSIONS
This section discussed the shear behaviour of RC beams without shear reinforcement
made from phyllite concrete as compared to granite concrete. Additionally, shear
strength characteristics of phyllite RC beams with shear reinforcement under
monolithic and cyclic loading was investigated. Five different shear design equations
(BS8110, ACI 318-02, EC 2, NZS 3101 and AS 3600) were compared to check their
predictability of the low strength phyllite and granite concrete beams.
Results revealed that shear strength characteristics of phyllite RC beams without
shear reinforcement compared well with that of granite RC beams. Comparing the
five codes, it was realized that EC2 provided significant improvement in prediction
uniformity of the low strength RC beams. More cracks of larger widths were
observed in the beams with shear reinforcement compared to those without shear
reinforcement. Beams subjected to cyclic loads exhibited wider crack widths as
compared to corresponding beams subjected to monotonic loading. First diagonal
shear crack is independent of the amount of shear links and mode of application of
the load (monotonic or cyclic). First diagonal shear crack load of beams without
67
shear reinforcement was between 42-92% of the failure load whilst those of beams
with shear links ranged from 42-58% of the failure loads. The phyllite concrete beams
without shear links had lower post-diagonal shear resistance. It is suggested that
anchorage of reinforcing bars in phyllite RC beams should be designed properly to
ensure that premature failure under cyclic loads do not occur.
68
BIBLIOGRAPHY
AASHTO LRFD (1998): “Bridge Design Specifications”, American Association
for State Highway and Transportation Officials. 2nd Edition,
Washington D.C
ACI 211(1991): “Standard practice of selecting proportions for normal,

heavyweight and mass concrete”. American Concrete Institute
ACI Committee 207, (2005): “Guide to mass concrete report by ACI committee”,
Manual of concrete practice
ACI Committee 318 (1995): “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced

Concrete and Commentary- ACI318RM-95. American Concrete
Institute. Detroit.
ACI Committee 318 (2002): “Building code requirements for structural

concreteACI 318-02) and commentary USA;
Adom-Asamoah M, Afrifa R.O, (2010): “A study of concrete properties using

phyllite as coarse aggregates”. Journal of Materials and Design 31(9):
4561-4566
Adom-Asamoah M, Afrifa R.O, (2011): “Investigation on the flexural behaviour

of reinforced concrete beams using phyllite aggregate from mining
waste”. Journal of Materials and Design 32: 5132-5140.
Adom-Asamoah M, Wiafe-Ampofo J, Afrifa R.O, (2009): “Flexural and shear

Behaviour of reinforced concrete beams made from recycled
materials”. Journal of Ghana Institution of Engineers 6 &7(1): 57 – 66.
Ahmed S.H, Khaloo A.R, Poveda A, (1986): “Shear capacity of reinforced

concrete beams”. ACI Journal Proceedings 82(2): 297-305.
Ahmed S.H, Lue D.M, (1987): “Flexural-shear interaction of reinforced high-

strength concrete beams”. ACI Structural Journal 330-341
Ang B.G, Prestley M.J.N, Pauley T, (1989): “Seismic shear strength of circular
reinforced concrete column”. ACI Structures Journal 86(1) 45-49
Arslan G, (2008): “Cracking shear strength of RC slender beams without

stirrups”. Journal Civil Engineering and Management 14(3):177-182.
AS 3600, (1994): “Concrete Structures”, Standards Association of Australia,

Sydney, 1994
69
ASCE-ACI (1998): “Recent approach to the shear design of structural concrete”.
Journal Structural Engineering: 124(12):1375-1417. ASCE-ACI
Committee 445 on Shear and Torsion
ASCE-ACI (1973): “Shear strength of reinforced concrete members”. Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE 99(6), 1091-1187. ASCE-ACI Joint
Task Committee 426
Ashour S.A, (2000): “Effect of compressive strength and tensile reinforcement
ratio on flexural behaviour of high-strength concrete”. Engineering
Structures 23(5): 413-423
ASTM C 33, (2004): “Standard specification for concrete aggregates”, Annual

Book of ASTM Standards, Vol.04.02, American Society for Testing
and Materials, Philadelphia, USA, 2004.
Barnady C, (2004): “An investigation into the use of organic waste produced by
the New Zealand mussel industry”. A thesis submitted in partial
fulfillment of the degree of Master of Science. Auckland University of
Technology
Basri H.B, Mannan M.A, Zain M.F, (1999): “Concrete using oil palm shell as
aggregate”. Cement and Concrete Research (29):619-622.
Bazant Z.P, Kim J.K, (1984): “Size effect in shear failure of longitudinally
reinforced beams”. ACI J 1984; 81:456-68
Bazant Z.P, Kazemi M.I, (1991): “Size effect on diagonal shear failure of beams
without stirrups”. ACI J 1991; 88:268-76
Bentz E.C, Vecchio J.F, Collins P.M, (2006): “Simplified Modified Compression
Field Theory for Calculating Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Elements” ACI Structural Journal, V. 103, No. 4, July-August 2006.
Bohigas A.C, (2002): “Shear Design of Reinforced High-Strength Concrete

Beams”. PhD. Universitat Politecnica De Catalunya, Barcelona.
BS882 (1983): “Specification of Aggregates for Concrete”, British Standard

Institute
BS812 (1975): “Specification of Aggregates for Concrete”. British Standard

Institute Part 1
BS4449 (1997): “Specification for carbon steel bars for the reinforcement of
concrete”, British Standards Institute
70
BS8110 (1997): “Structural Use of Concrete. Part 1: Code of Practice for Design
and Construction”, British Standards Institution (BSI), Milton Keynes
(1997)
BS5328 (1991): “Methods for specifying concrete mixes” Part 2; British

Standards Institution (BSI)
Bukari I.A, Ahmad S, (2008): “Evaluation of shear strength of high-strength

concrete beams without stirrups”. Arabian Journal for Science and
Engineering: 33 (2B).
CSA (1994): “Design of Concrete Structures” A23.3-94, Canadian Standards

Association, Rexdale, Ontario.
Choi K.K, Sherif A.G, Tahac M.M.R, Chung L, (2009): “Shear strength of
slender reinforced concrete beams without web reinforcement”. A
model using fuzzy set theory, Engineering Structures. 31: 768-777.
Chung J.C, (2000): “An Experimental Study on the Flexure-Shear Interaction

Relation of RC Beams without Transverse Reinforcement”. MSc.
Thesis, Chungang University, South Korea
Cladera A, Mari A.R, (2007): “Shear strength of the new Eurocode 2, A step
forward?” Structural concrete: 8(2)
Collins M.P, (1978): “Towards a Rational Theory for RC Members in Shear,”

Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 104, No. 4, Apr. 1978,
pp. 649-666.
Concrete Structures (2003): “Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings”.
Revised final draft, Brussels, Belgium
Correia A, de Brito J, Pereira A.S, (2005): “Effect of concrete durability of using

recycled ceramic aggregate. Materials and Design 39(2), 169-177
DOE (1988): “Design of normal concrete mixes”, Published by the British

Department of Environment
Dileep K.P.G, Bentz E.C, (2005): “Empirical modeling of reinforced concrete

shear strength size effect for members without stirrups”. ACI
Structural Journal: 102: 232-41
Dino A, (1999): “The influence of concrete strength and longitudinal ratio on the
shear strength of large-size reinforced concrete beams with, and
71
without, transverse reinforcement”. A Thesis submitted in conformity
with the requirements for the Degree of Master of Applied Science
Graduate Department of Civil Engineering University of Toronto.
Dopico J. R, P𝑒́rez-Ord𝑜́𝑛̃ez J.L, Cladera B.A, Gonz𝑎́lez-Fonteboa B, Mart𝑖́nez-

Abella F, (2008): “Shear and bond analysis on structural concrete
using artificial neural networks”. American Society of Civil Engineers,
International Committee, Los Angeles Section, 5th International
Engineering and Construction, Conference (IECC’5), August 27 – 29.
Durocrete Mix Design Manual (1998): Durocrete Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd.
Construction Quality Assurance
Elahi A, (2003): “Effect of Reinforcement Ratio and Shear Span on Shear

Strength of High-strength Concrete Beams”. MSc Thesis, Taxila
University
El-Chabib H, Nehdi M, Said A, (2005): “Predicting shear capacity of NSC and

HSC slender beams without stirrups using artificial intelligence”.
Computers and Concrete 2: 79–96.
El-Chabib H, Nehdi M, Said A. (2006): “Predicting the effect of stirrups on shear

strength of reinforced normal-strength concrete (NSC) and high-
strength concrete (HSC) slender beams using artificial intelligence”.
Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 33: 933–44.
BS EN Eurocode 2 (1992): “Design of Concrete Structures”. Part 1-1: General

Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for
Standardization ENV 1992-1-1
BS EN Eurocode 2 (2003): “Design of concrete structures”. Part I. General rules

and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization,
Brussels
Ferguson P.M, (1956): “Some implication of recent diagonal tension test”.

Journal of ACI 28(2)(1956): 157-172.
Hassan A.A.A, Hossain K. M. A, Lachemi M, (2008): “Behaviour of full-scale

self-consolidated concrete beams in shear”. Cement and Concrete
Composite; 30: 588-596
Holt E, (2005): “Contribution of chemical autogenious shrinkage of concrete at

early age”. Cement and concrete research 2005; 35(3): 464-72
72
Imran A.B, Saeed A, (2007): “Evaluation of shear strength of high strength
concrete beams without stirrups”. Arabian Journal of Science and
Engineering 3(2B)
IS456 (2000): “Plain and reinforced concrete code of practice”. Bureau of Indian
Standards (fourth revision) ICS 91.100.30 July 2000
IRC-44 (1996): “Concrete Mix Design- A complete guide and implementation”.

Indian Road Congress
Jackson N, Dhir R.H, (1996): “Civil Engineering Materials, Fifth edition,

Palgrave Macmillan Publishers,
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (1986): “Specification for Design and

Construction of Concrete Structures”. Design, JSCE Standard, Part 1,
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo
JSCE (1986): “Standard Specification for Concrete Structures, Part1. Japan

Society of Earthquake Engineers.
Jumaat M.Z, Alengaram U.J, (2009): “Shear strength of oil palm shell foamed
concrete beams”. Journal of Materials and Design; 30: 2227-2236.
Kankam C.K, Adom-Asamoah M, (2002): “Strength and ductility characteristics

of reinforcing steel bars milled from scrap metals”. Journal of Material
and Design; 23: 537-545.
Khuntia M, Stojadinovic B, (2001): “Shear strength of reinforced concrete beams

without transverse reinforcement”. ACI Structural Journal 98(5) 648 –
656
Kim K.S, Jung S, Han S.E, (2005): “Prediction of shear strength using artificial
neural networks for reinforced concrete members without shear
reinforcement”. Journal of Computational Structures: Engineering
Institute of Korea. 18: 201–11.
Kim J.K, Park Y.D, (1994): “Shear strength of reinforced high strength concrete
beams without stirrups.” Magazine of Concrete Research 46(166): 7 –
16.
Kong F.K, Evans R. H, (1994): “Reinforced and Prestressed Concrete”. 3rd ed.
London, Chaplan & Hall
Kumar P.S, Mannan M.A, Kurian V.J, Achuytha H, (2007): “Investigation on the
flexural behaviour of high performance reinforced concrete beams
73
using sandstone aggregates”. Building and Environment; 42: 2622-
2629
Kwak Y.K, Eberhard M.O, Kim W.S, Kim J, (2002): “Shear Fibre Reinforced
Beams without Stirrups”, ACI Structural Journal; 99-S55
Lim H.S, Wee T.H, Mansur M.A, Kong K.H, (2006): “Flexural behaviour of
reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete beam”. Proceedings of 6th
Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction (APSEC), Kuala
Lumpur-Malaysia
Mannan A.Md, Teo D.L.C, Kurian J.V, (2006): “Flexural behaviour of reinforced
concrete beams made with oil palm shell (OPS)”. Journal of Advanced
Concrete Technology 4(3): 1-10, 459-468.
Marthey R, Watstein D, (1963): “Shear strength of beams without web

reinforcement containing deformed bars of different yield strengths”.
Journal of ACI 60(2): 197-206.
Massicotte B, Elwi A.E, MacGregor J.M, (1990): “Tension stiffening model for
planar reinforced concrete members. Journal of Structural Engineering,
16 (11): 3039 – 3059.
Mwafi A.M, (2002): “Seismic performance of code-designed RC buildings”.

PhD. thesis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine,
University of London
Nandy S, (2001): “Assessing external reinforcement on reinforced concrete

beams using neural networks”. A thesis presented to the graduate
school Of the University of Florida in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Building
Construction. University of Florida
Nedlie M, Khan A, (2001). “Cemetitious composite containing recycled fine

crusher, An overview of engineering properties and potential apply”.
23:3-10
Neville A.M, (1996): “Properties of Concrete”, Fourth edition, Pearson

Education Limited, Prentice Hall.
Nicolo B.D, (1994): “Strain of concrete at peak compressive stress for a wide
range of compressive strength”. Materials and structures; 27(2): 206-
21.
Nielsen M.P, (1984): “Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity”, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984, 420 pp.
74
Noghabai K, (2000): “Beams of fibrous concrete in shear and bending:
experiment and model”. Journal of Structural Engineering; ASCE
126(2): 2243-251.
NZS 3101 (1995): “The Design of Concrete Structures”. Part 1, New Zealand
Standards, Wellington
Oreta A.W.C, (2004): “Simulating Size Effect on Shear Strength of RC Beams

without Stirrups using Neural”. Engineering Structures; 26:681-691
Piyamahant S, (2002): “Shear behaviour of reinforcing concrete beam with small

amount web reinforcement”. Master of Engineering thesis: Kochi
University of Technology.
Prasad J, Jain D.K, Ahuja A.K, (2006): “India Factors influencing the sulphate
resistance of Cement concrete and mortar”, Department of Civil
Engineering, I.I.T.R., Roorkee, Asian journal of civil engineering
(building and housing) vol. 7, no. 3 (2006)Pages 259-268
Priestley M.J.N, Wong Y.L, Paulay T, (1993): “Response of circular reinforced

concrete columns to multi-directional seismic attack”. ACI Structural
Journal 90(2): 180-191
Rebeiz K.S, Fente J, Frabissie M, (2000): “New shear strength prediction for
concrete members using statistical and interpolation function
techniques”. 8th Special conference PMC 2000-279
Regan P.E, (1993): “Research on shear: a benefit to humanity or a waste of

time?” The Structural Engineer (London) 71(19): 337 – 346.
Reineck K.H, Kuchma D.A, Kim K.S, Marx S, (2003): “Shear database for
reinforced concrete members without shear reinforcement”. ACI
Structural Journal 100:240–9.etworks. 691. Engineering Structures
26(5): 681-
Sanad A, Saka M.P, (2001): “Prediction of ultimate shear strength of reinforced

concrete deep beams using neural networks”. Journal of Structural
Engineering 127: 818–28.
Sancak E, Dursun S.Y, Simsek O, (2008): “Effects of elevated temperature on

compressive strength and weight loss of the light-weight concrete with
silica fume and superplasticizer” Cement & Concrete Composites 30
(2008) 715–721
75
Senzen H, (2002): “Seismic behaviour and modeling of reinforced concrete
building columns”. PhD Thesis: University of California, Berkeley.
Shah A, Ahmad S, (2007): “An experimental investigation into shear capacity of

high strength concrete beams”. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering:
Building and Housing, 8(5): 549-562.
Shear Databank. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1999-2002).

(http://www.cee.uiuc.edu/kuchma/sheardatabank/codes/code.htm) (Last date
accessed 9/30/2011). 1-12
Shioya T, Iguro M, Nojiri Y, Akiayma H, Okada T, (1989): “Shear strength of

large reinforced concrete beams”. Fracture Mechanics Application to
Concrete: ACI 1989. SP-118, Detroit, 259-279.
Shuab H.A, Ray B, (1991): “Flexural behaviour of high-strength lightweight

concrete beams”. ACI Structural Journal; 88(1): 66-77.
Swamy R.N, Adepegba D, (1969): “Shear resistance of reinforced beams without

web steel”. Build Sci 1969; 3:207-20
Taylor H.P, (1974): “The fundamental behaviour of reinforced concrete beams in

bending and shear”. Proceedings ACI –ASCE Shear symposium,
Ottawa (ACI SP-42), Detroit: 43-77.
Tempos E.J, Frosch R.J, (2002): “Influence of beams size, longitudinal
reinforcement and stirrup effectiveness on concrete shear strength”.
ACI Journal 99(5): 559-67.
Teo D.C.L, Mannan M.A, Kurian V.J, Ganapathy C, (2007): “Lightweight

concrete made from oil palm shell (OPS)”. Structural bond and
durability properties; Building and Environment 42: 2614-2621.
Teo D.C.L, Mannan M.A, Kurian V.J, Ganapathy C, (2006): “Flexural behaviour
of reinforced lightweight concrete beams made with oil palm shell
(OPS)”. Journal Advance Concrete Technology; 4(3): 1-10.
Teychenné D.C, Franklin R.E, Erntroy H.C, (1988): “Design of normal concrete
mixes”. Department of the Environment (DOE)
Vecchio F.J, and Collins, M.P, (1986): “The Modified Compression Field Theory
for Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI Journal,
Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1986, pp. 219-231.
Vecchio, F.J, and Collins, M.P, (1982): “The Response of Reinforced Concrete to
In-Plane Shear and Normal Stresses,” Publication No. 82-03,
76
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, 1982, 332 pp.
Vintzeteou E.N, Tassios T.P, (1986): “Mathematical models for dowel action
under monotonic conditions, Magazine of Concrete Research 39(134):
13-22.
Walraven J.C, (1981): “Fundamental analysis of aggregate interlock. J Struct. Div,

ASCE 1981; 108: 2245-70
Walraven J, Lehwalter N, (1994): “Size effects in short beams loaded in shear. ACI
Struct J 1994; 91(5):585-93
Watanabe F, Ichinose T. (1991): “Strength and ductility design of RC members

subjected to combined bending and shear”. Proceedings of workshop
on concrete shear in earthquake; University of Houston, Tex 429-438
Wikipedia free encyclopedia (2006)
Wong Y.L, Pauley T. and Priestley M.J.N, (1993): “Response of circular

reinforced concrete column to multi-ductile seismic attack”. ACI
Structural Journal 90(2) 180-191
Xiao J, Li J, Zhang Ch, (2005): “Mechanical properties of recycled aggregates

under uniaxial loading”. Cement and Concrete Research 35: 1187-
1194.
Yang K.H, Ashour A.F, (2008): “Modelling of Reinforced Concrete Deep

Beams”. Magazine of Concrete Research; 60(6): 441-454.
Zararis, P.D, (2003): “Shear strength and minimum shear reinforcement of

reinforced concrete slender beams”. ACI Structural Journal 100(2):
203–214.
Zareen N, Niwa J, (1993): “Nonlinear finite element analysis for shear behaviour
of reinforced concrete beams based on fracture mechanics. Vol.15
No.2
Zsutty T, (1986): “Beam Shear Strength Prediction by Analysis of Existing
Data”. ACI Journal 65(11): 942-951.
77
APPENDIX A DIAGRAMS OFPHYLLITESCONCRETE BEAMS
WITHOUT WEB REINFORCEMENT
78
APPENDIX B DIAGRAMSOF GRANITE CONCRETE BEAMS
WITHOUT WEB REINFORCEMENT
79
APPENDIX C DIAGRAMS OF PHYLLITE CONCRETE BEAMS WITH
WEB REINFORCEMENT
80
View publication stats

1 KNUSTDCESTRENG2016 TR3 A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 KNUSTDCESTRENG2016 TR3 A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Shear strength characteristics of reinforced concrete beams made from

Technical Report · September 2016

Russell Owusu Afrifa Mark Adom-Asamoah

Progressive collapse View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Russell Owusu Afrifa

Department of Civil Engineering,

made of phyllite and granite aggregates. A comparative study on shear strength of 10

and granite concrete beams.

Results revealed that shear strength characteristics of phyllite RC beams without

wider crack widths as compared to corresponding beams subjected to monotonic

suggested that anchorage of reinforcing bars in phyllite RC beams should be

SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Phyllite, a naturally occurring aggregate is being produced as by-product of

underground mining activities of the AngloGold Ashanti mines Obuasi, in the

latitude and longitude of 08˚00’N and 02˚00’W respectively. The geographic

pavement and building construction.

Reports indicate that buildings, constructed with phyllite as coarse aggregate

flexural strength. The major contribution of concrete to strength in concrete

concentrates on the shear behaviour of structural component made with phyllite

Figure 1.2 Shear failures at beams–column junction, Church building Obuasi-Ghana

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

for crushed granite as coarse aggregates in concrete production. The presence of

Ghana, phyllite rocks are obtained as a by-product of underground mining activity.

more stringent, causing waste to become increasingly expensive to dispose.

Subsequently, exploitation of the waste material as sustainable building material in

coarse aggregates. Phyllite aggregates are already in use as coarse aggregates in

complete collapse of structural concrete elements made from phyllite aggregates do

normal (granite) concrete. Secondly, there is insufficient information on the

structural performance of this material in terms of laboratory tests to provide

by various standards and specifications, yet results are misleading.

that, the objective of this research include:

aggregates. Reinforced concrete beams without stirrups made of phyllite

aggregates and granite aggregates are compared. The behaviour of phyllite

beams with shear reinforcement under cyclic as compared to monotonic

loading is also considered.

● To evaluate shear strength prediction models for low strength reinforced

concrete beams without shear reinforcement.

analytical procedures on the shear behavior of reinforced concrete beams is provided

material source properties, test specimen construction, test setup, instrumentation,

modulus of rupture beams and reinforced concrete beams in shear.

In Chapter 4, the behaviour of reinforced concrete beams using phyllite aggregates

without transverse reinforcement as compared to reinforced concrete beams using

1999, NZS 3101, 1995).

2.1 Basic Shear Transfer Mechanism in beams without transverse reinforcement

determined. Considering the simple supported beam in Figure 2.1 as load is

of an arch and tensile stresses assume the form of suspended cable.

Diagonal tension crack

Figure 2.1 Principal stresses in a beam (Mosley et al, 1999)

reinforcement is provided by;

1. Concrete in the compression zone

2. Aggregate interlock across crack planes

3. Dowel action of longitudinal reinforcement

The addition of transverse reinforcement provides an extra resistance to the shearing

capacity of reinforced concrete structures. It is difficult to estimate and isolate the

cuts the incremental tensile flow in the longitudinal reinforcement. Compressive

the top of the beam.

shear crack are a major component of shear capacity.

Increase in the amount of tension reinforcement is known to influence the shear

strength of beams. Commenting on the ACI-318, Ahmed et al (1986) concluded that

percentage of longitudinal steel reinforcement. Tempos and Frosch (2002) reported