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

net/publication/333564969

Experimental Investigation of Shear Behavior in Flexure Members

Article  in  International Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Exploration · April 2019

CITATIONS READS

0 74

1 author:

J D Chaitanya Kumar
K L University
27 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

precast structures View project

teaching to PG students View project

All content following this page was uploaded by J D Chaitanya Kumar on 03 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
Experimental Investigation of Shear
Behavior in Flexure Members
K Deepthi, J D Chaitanya Kumar, M L Sai Rangarao 
Abstract:--- This research provides experimental data on
comparison between the inclined bars and vertical stirrups used
as shear reinforcement. Different forms of shear reinforcement
are induced and studied in this research. Since shear failure
occurs at an angle of 45º, therefore if it can be counteracted
using an inclined stirrup, then there may be a chance to reduce
the crack propagation in flexure members. Inclined bars are
generally provided in beams since the principle tensile force acts
in an inclined direction. They are provided throughout the length
of the beam. Hence different forms of stirrups such as truss
model, inclined stirrups and bracing type are used. Total 8 beams
are casted in which two are designed with conventional stirrups,
two with truss type and two with bracing type. These forms are
analyzed under different loading conditions such as three point
and four point loading. From the results obtained, crack pattern,
strength characteristics and strain were observed and compared
with conventional stirrups induced in beams. It has showed that
the beam with inclined bars has showed improvement in strength
characteristics compared to the beam with conventional stirrups.
Index Terms: bracing, inclined, reinforcement, shear, and
truss
I. INTRODUCTION
Beams and columns are the most important aspects in any
construction. Satisfying the serviceability limit states is the
objective of any structure. Generally, failure in beams
occurs in shear or flexure. Shear failure of reinforced
concrete beams is very complex. It occurs at sudden without
warning. Shear failure is considered to be high risk failure.
Shear failure in beams is caused by the diagonal cracks near
the supports. These cracks extend towards the compression
zone starting from the bottom. Stirrups are important to
increase the shear resisting capacity in beams. Hence it is
made necessary to discover efficient ways to design these
beams for shear. RCC beams must have sufficient safety
margin against bending and shear forces, hence it will
perform effectively during its service life. At the ultimate
limit state, the combined effects of bending and shear may
exceed the resisting capacity of the beam and it will lead to
tensile cracks. Then the shear failure is difficult to predict
accurately. The use of inclined shear reinforcement has not
been so popular in the industry due to the difficulty of
fabrication. However, due to diagonal cracking pattern of
shear failure in RC beams, it seems that inclined position is
more effective in resisting the shear crack compared with
the use of vertical position. The use of inclined shear
Revised Manuscript Received on April 09, 2019.
K Deepthi, P. G. student, Department of Civil Engineering, Koneru
Lakshmaiah Education Foudation, Guntur, A.P., India.
J D Chaitanya Kumar, Assistant professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foudation, Guntur, A.P.,
India.
M L Sai Rangarao, Assistant professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foudation, Guntur, A.P.,
India.
Retrieval Number: F10560476C219 /19©BEIESP
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-7, Issue-6C2, April 2019
reinforcement has not been so popular in the industry due to
the difficulty of fabrication. This paper presents a theory
which explains the shear failure of the reinforced concrete
beams of different forms under different loading conditions.
Hence due to diagonal cracking pattern of shear failure in
RC beams, it seems that inclined position is more effective
in resisting the shear crack compared with the use of vertical
position.
Shear reinforcement should be equal to the minimum
reinforcement as specified in the code. The paper was a
theoretical analysis which stated that 0.2% is appropriate
shear reinforcement. Failure mechanisms when small
amount of web reinforcement is used are studied in detail
[1].
Effective depth of the beam doesn’t have any influence on
the shear strength which does not have web reinforcement.
Eight simply supported beams are tested without shear and
are investigated. Effective depth is variable and other
parameters such as longitudinal reinforcement, shear span-
to-depth ratio and maximum aggregate size are considered
to be constant while designing the beam. The parameters are
kept constant in order to reduce the concrete shear strength
[2].
Experimental investigations on reinforced concrete beams
in which shear behavior of concrete were studied. In the
design additionally bent up bars were used along with the
conventional longitudinal reinforcement in order to increase
the shear capacity of beams. These beams are compared
with the conventionally reinforced beams. The results have
showed that the beams used with the bent up bars are
stronger than the conventionally reinforced beams [3].
II. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Table I show the material properties of concrete which
was used to make the specimens. Table III shows the
reinforcement details used in the beams. Concrete mix was
designed according to the IS code. The mix was made with
ordinary Portland cement of 53 grade with specific gravity
obtained 3.15, natural sand and aggregates of size
20mm.specific gravity of coarse aggregate and fine
aggregate determined are 2.81 and 2.6 respectively. Water
cement ratio was maintained to be 0.45 according to the IS
codes. Table II shows the average compressive strength was
obtained from cubes compression tests made up of 150mm
side length at 7 and 28 days. Shear was analyzed by
constructing beams of 1.5m span with dimensions 230mm
and 380mm. In these beams, shear reinforcement of
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
305 & Sciences Publication
 International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE-2019) | 21-23 March 2019 |
K L Deemed to be University, Vijayawada, A.P. India

different typologies are induced. These beams are tested at

28 days under different loading conditions such as three
point load and four point loading. Standard M30 grade of
concrete is used.

Table I: Material properties of concrete Figure 1: Layout of conventional reinforced concrete

beam
MATERIAL QUANTITY
Cement 438kg/m3
Triangle Type Shear Reinforced Concrete Beam: Truss
3 type reinforced concrete beam consists of 8mm bar in the
Fine aggregate 1138kg/m
compression zone and 16mm bars in the tension zone and
the stirrups are designed in the form of a truss. This type of
Coarse aggregate 678kg/m3
reinforcement is analyzed for the sake of observing the
crack pattern of shear failure in RCC beam. Figure 2 shows
Water 198lt/m3
the layout of truss type shear reinforcement used in the
beam.
Table II: Compressive strength of concrete
Number Trail 1 Trail 2 Trail 3 Averag
of days e
7 days 24.2 22.0 25.6 26

28 days 33.1 31.0 30.5 32.3

Figure 2: Layout of truss type shear reinforced concrete

Table III: Reinforcement details
beam
Zone Tension Compression
Diameter of 16mm 8mm Inclined Type Shear Reinforced Concrete Beam:
bar Inclined type shear reinforced concrete beams consist of
stirrups in the inclined direction at an angle of 45º. The
angle is used to counteract the shear crack which will start
III. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM from the supports of the beam at the same angle. Figure 3
shows the layout of the inclined stirrups used as shear
A. Test Specimens
reinforcement in beam.
Cubes of dimension 150mm×150mm×150mm are used
for compressive strength of concrete for designed concrete
grade of M30. Slump was maintained 100mm. The cubes
were tested for compressive strength to check the grade of
concrete. Shear reinforcement typologies are tested by
casting the beam specimens of span 1.5m and dimensions of
230mm×380mm. The beam design was made according to
the IS codes. Total 8 beams are casted in which two beams Figure 3: Layout of inclined shear reinforced concrete
are designed with conventional stirrups, two with bracing beam
type stirrups, two with truss type and two with inclined type
of stirrups. Each type is tested under both single point and Bracing Type Shear Reinforced Concrete Beam:
two point loading for the two beams casted for every type. Bracing type shear reinforcement is used to study the crack
Effective span and dimensions are kept constant. 16mm Ø pattern and shear behavior of concrete under different
bars are used in tension reinforcement and 8mm Ø bars are loading conditions. Figure 4 shows the layout of the bracing
used in compression zone. Stirrups are designed according type of stirrups used in the RCC beam.
to each type. Figure 1 shows the conventional beam, Figure
2 shows the beam designed with truss type shear
reinforcement, Figure 3 shows the beam designed with
inclined type stirrups as shear reinforcement. Figure 4 shows
the beam designed with bracing stirrups used as shear
reinforcement.
Conventionally Reinforced Concrete beam: Figure 4: Layout of bracing shear reinforced concrete
beam

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: F10560476C219 /19©BEIESP 306 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-7, Issue-6C2, April 2019

A. Casting of Specimens
All the eight beams were casted in the steel mould using
the concrete of M30 grade and a maximum size of aggregate
20mm. The steel reinforcement in the compression zone and
tension zone are 16mm and 8mm respectively. Stirrups are
made of different types such as conventional stirrups,
inclined stirrups, truss type stirrups and bracing type. All the
beams are casted in similar as that of Figure 5. Figure 6
shows the completed concrete casted beam.

Figure 8: Load setup of beam under three point loading

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

All the details of failure modes and ultimate failure loads
Figure 5: casting of truss type shear reinforced concrete are exhibited.
beam
A. Discussion of failure mode of the control specimen
Beam designed with conventional shear reinforcement
failed at a load of 150kN under four point loading. The
conventional beam is the control specimen in the
investigation. The beam was casted with nominal vertical
stirrups in the shear zone and rebar’s in the tension and
compression zones. The first crack appeared at a load of
42kN. The cracks mitigated from the tension zone to the mid
area of the beam. Flexural cracks increased on increment of
loading. Shear crack became visible during the load of
56kN. The control specimen failed in shear at the load of
Figure 6: Completely casted RCC beam 150kN. When the control specimen is tested under single
point loading, first crack appeared at the load of 230kN and
IV. METHODOLOGY ultimate load reached up to 400kN. The load deflection
curve for the conventional beam under three points loading
All eight beams were tested under loading frame. Figures
and four points loading are shown in Figures 9 and 10
7 and 8 shows the local setup of loading frames for 4 point
respectively.
and 3 point respectively.

500
400
Load (kN)

300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15
Deflection (mm)
Figure 9: Load Deflection Curve for Conventional
Beam with Three Point Loading

Figure 7: load setup of beam under four point loading

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: F10560476C219 /19©BEIESP 307 & Sciences Publication
 International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE-2019) | 21-23 March 2019 |
K L Deemed to be University, Vijayawada, A.P. India

200 This type of shear reinforced beam consists of two 8mm

bars in the compression zone and two 16mm bars in the
150 tension zone and the shear reinforcement is provided in the
Load (kN)
form of inclined bars at an angle of 45º counteracting the
100 shear cracks. Two beams are casted with this type of shear
reinforcement and tested under different loading conditions.
50 Under three point loading, first crack is observed at 192kN
and failed at an ultimate load of 240kN. Similarly the beam
tested under four point loading, the first crack is observed at
0
190kN and the beam failed at an ultimate load of 310kN.
0 5 10 15 20
Deflection (mm) Figure 13 and 14 shows the load deflection curve for the
beam tested under three point and four point loadings.
Figure 10: Load Deflection Curve for
Conventional Beam with Four Point Loading

300
B. Discussion for Behavior of Truss Type Shear Reinforced 250
Beams

Load (kN)
200
The beam casted under truss type shear reinforcement
150
consists of one 8mm bar in the compression zone and two
16mm bars in the tension zone. Two beams are tested under 100
three point and four point loadings. The truss type shear 50
reinforced beam tested under three point loading showed the 0
first crack at 154kN and failed at an ultimate load of 290kN. 0 5 10 15
Similarly when this type of beam is tested under four point
Deflection (mm)
loading it showed the first crack at 290kN and failed at an
ultimate load of 331kN. Figure 11 and 12 shows the load Figure 13: Load Deflection Curve for Inclined
deflection curve for the beam tested under three point and Type Shear Reinforced Beam with Three Point
four point loadings. Loading

200
350
150 300
Load (kN)

250
Load (kN)

100 200
150
50
100
0 50
0 0.5 1 1.5 0
Deflection (mm) 0 5 10
Deflection (mm)
Figure 11: Load Deflection Curve for Truss Type Figure 14: Load Deflection Curve for Inclined
Shear Reinforced Beam with Three Point Loading Type Shear Reinforced Beam with Four Point
Loading
D. Discussion of Failure Modes of Bracing Type Beams
500 This type of shear reinforced beam consists of two 8mm
400 bars in compression zone and two 16mm bars in the tension
zone. Two beams are casted and tested. When the beam is
Load (kN)

300 tested under three point loading, first crack is observed at

208kN and the beam failed at an ultimate load of 280kN.
200 Similarly under four point loading, first crack is observed at
100 214kN and failed at an ultimate load of 393kN. Figure 15
and 16 shows the load deflection curve for the beam tested
0 under three point and four point loadings.
0 2 4 6 8 10
Deflection (mm)
Figure 12: Load Deflection Curve for Truss Type
Shear Reinforced Beam with Four Point Loading
C. Discussion of Failure Modes of Inclined Type Beams

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: F10560476C219 /19©BEIESP 308 & Sciences Publication
 International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)
ISSN: 2277-3878, Volume-7, Issue-6C2, April 2019

300
250
Load (kN)

200
150
100
Figure 19: Crack Pattern for Truss Type Shear
50 Reinforced Beam Under Three Point Loading
0
0 10 20
Deflection (mm)

Figure 15: Load Deflection Curve for Bracing Type

Shear Reinforced Beam with Three Point Loading

Figure 20: Crack Pattern for Truss Type Shear

Reinforced Beam Under Four Point Loading
450
400
350
Load (kN)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Figure 21: Crack Pattern for Inclined Type Shear
0 5 10 15
Reinforced Beam Under Three Point Loading
Deflection (mm)

Figure 16: Load Deflection Curve for Bracing Type

Shear
E. Crack Pattern of all Beams
Figures 17-24 shows the beams that were under gone 3
and point loadings and cracks that are forms in it.
Figure 22: Crack Pattern for Inclined Type Shear
Reinforced Beam Under Four Point Loading

Figure 17: Crack Pattern for Conventional Beam Under

Three Point Loading
Figure 23: Crack Pattern for Bracing Type Shear
Reinforced Beam Under Three Point Loading

Figure 18: Crack Pattern for Conventional Beam Under

Four Point Loading Figure 24: Crack Pattern for Bracing Type Shear
Reinforced Beam Under Four Point Loading

Figure 25 shows the comparison bar chat for the 3 point and
4 point loadings.

Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
Retrieval Number: F10560476C219 /19©BEIESP 309 & Sciences Publication
 International Conference on Advances in Civil Engineering (ICACE-2019) | 21-23 March 2019 |
Three point load Four point load
500
400
300
200
100
0 failure of longitudinally reinforced beams.” Journal of the
C T I B
Figure 25: Bar Graph Showing Comparison
between Different types of Beams under Three
point and four Point Loadings
In Figure 25 the C denotes for conventional, T denotes
Truss, I denotes Inclined, B denoted bracing.
VI. CONCLUSION
From the results obtained, it has been concluded that,
1. Considering the objective of the study, shear behavior
of beams is analyzed and compared with the control
specimen.
2. Only the truss type shear reinforced beam failed in
shear under both three point and four point loading
conditions.
3. Under three point loading condition, all types of
beams proved to be good compared to the control
specimen in terms of flexural strength.
4. Compared to all beams, bracing is best suited after the
control specimen in terms of flexural capacity and
crack behavior.
5. Truss and inclined type shear reinforced beams are
almost same in flexural capacity under both three
point and four point loading conditions and vary in
crack behavior.
Shear is a complex problem involved in the structural
members. Among all the types of beams, bracing type shear
reinforced beam proved better than truss and inclined type
shear reinforced beams. They can be used at various places
depending upon the requirement for the increase in the ease
of access.
REFERENCES
1. Piyamahant, “Shear behavior of reinforced concrete beams
with small amount of web reinforcement”, M. Eng.
Dissertion, Kochi University of Technology, Japan, 2002.
2. Lesley H. Sneed and Julio A. “Effect of Depth on the Shear
Strength of Concrete Beams without Shear reinforcement,”
USA Portland and cement Association. 2008.
3. Noor Hamid, “The Use of Horizontal and Inclined Bars as
Shear Reinforcement,” Master Thesis, University of
Technology, Malaysia, 2005.
4. Nelson, LevingshanAugusthus and Janet M. Lees, “Size
effects in reinforced concrete beams strengthened CFRP
Straps,” In Advances in FRP Composites in Civil Engineering,
2011, pp. 789-793.
5. Al-Nasra, Moayyad M., and Naiem M. Asha. “Shear
reinforcements in the reinforced concrete beams.” American
Retrieval Number: F10560476C219 /19©BEIESP
View publication stats
K L Deemed to be University, Vijayawada, A.P. India
Journal of Engineering Research (AJER) Vol. 2, Issue 10,
2013, pp: 191-199.
6. Teo, Wee, and Gerald Muller. “Shear effectiveness of
shallow-angle bent-up bars for reinforced concrete beams.”
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Structures
and Buildings, Vol. 167, Issue 7, 2014, p. 398-413.
7. Mohammed Zakaria, Tamon Ueda, Zhimin Wu and Liang
Meng, “Experimental Investigation on Shear Cracking
Behavior on Reinforced Concrete Beams with Shear
Reinforcement.” Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology,
Vol. 7, Issue 1, 2009, pp. 79-96.
8. Bazant, Zdenek P and Jin-Keun Kim. “Size effect in shear
American Concrete Institute, Vol. 81, Issue 5, 1984, pp. 456-
468.
9. Sravanakumar P and A.Govindaraj. “Influence of Vertical and
Inclined Shear Reinforcement on Shear Cracking Behavior in
Reinforced Concrete Beams.” International Journal of Civil
Engineering and Technology (IJICET), Vol. 7, Issue 6, 2016,
pp. 602-610.
10. Placas, Alexandre. “Shear failure of reinforced concrete
beams.” 1971.
11. Von Ramin, Malte and adolfo B.Matamoros. “Shear Strength
of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to Monotonic and
Cyclic loads”, University of Kansas Center for researcg, Inc.,
2003.
12. Zamn, Nor Fazlin, Roslli Noor Mohamed, NurHafizah A.
Khalid and Kang Yong Chiat. “The Effects of Inclined Shear
Reinforcement in Reinforced Concrete Beam.” Malaysian
Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 30, Issue 1, 2018, pp. 1-5.
13. Furlan Jr. Sydney and Joao Bento de Hanai,”Shear behavior
of fiber reinforced concrete beams.” Cement and Concrete
Composites, Vol. 19, Issue 4, 1997,pp. 359-366.
Authors Profile
K Deepthi She is pursuing M.Tech
Structural Engineering in Koneru
Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (Deemed
to be University). She completed B.Tech in
Civil Engineering from SRK Institute of
Technology in 2017.
J D Chaithanya Kumar, he is pursuing
Doctorate from JNTU Anantapuramu, M.
Tech Gold Medalist in Structural
Engineering from GVP college of
Engineering (A) and Bachelor Degree in
Civil Engineering from SRK Institute of Technology. He
published more than 20 journals in Scopus Index and peer
reviewed journals. He is having 4-years of teaching
experience in India and 2-years of teaching experience in
Ethiopia. His research area is precast concrete and light
weight concrete. He is life member in Indian Concrete
Institute (ICI). Pre Engineered structures Society of India
(PSI).
M L Sai Rangarao, he completed his M.
Tech from Structural Engineering from
JNTU Kakinada, and Bachelor Degree in
Civil Engineering from K L University. He
published 3 papers in Scopus Index journal.
He is having 2-years of
teaching experience. His
research area is concrete
Published By:
Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering
310 & Sciences Publication