Proceedings of the fib Symposium 2019

Concrete - Innovations in Materials, Design and Structures

AN ANALYSIS OF THE SHEAR TRANSFER ACTIONS IN RC

SHORT SPAN BEAMS USING CRACK KINEMATICS
RECORDED VIA DIC

Marcus V. F. Pastore1 and Robert L. Vollum1

1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
Corresponding author email: r.vollum@imperial.ac.uk

Abstract
Shear in reinforced concrete (RC) beams is resisted by a combination of the flexural compression zone,
residual tensile stress, aggregate interlock, dowel action and shear reinforcement if present. The proportion
of shear force resisted by each shear action is directly related to the kinematics (opening and sliding) of
the critical shear crack. In beams loaded within around twice the effective depth (d) of supports, shear
resistance is increased by arching action whereby part of the load is transferred to the nearest support
through direct strutting action. The paper describes a study which was undertaken to investigate shear
transfer mechanisms in beams loaded near their supports. A total of four simply supported RC beams
(three short-span and one slender beams) without shear reinforcement were tested to study the influence
of loading arrangement on shear enhancement and the kinematics of the critical shear crack. Two of the
beams were loaded with two/three concentrated loads applied within 2d and at 3d from the support where
shear failure occurred. The crack kinematics were determined during loading using digital image
correlation (DIC). For each beam, constitutive models from the literature were used to assess the
contribution of each shear resisting mechanism at various loading stages up to failure. The paper presents
selected test results and relates the contribution of each shear resisting mechanism to the loading
arrangement, shape of the critical shear crack and its kinematics. Finally, general observations are made
about shear resisting mechanisms in the tested beams.

Keywords: Shear enhancement, short span beams, Digital Image Correlation, shear resisting
mechanisms, crack kinematics.

1. Introduction
Shear in cracked reinforced concrete beams is widely considered to be resisted internally by the
uncracked compression zone, residual tension, aggregate interlock, dowel action and shear
reinforcement if available. The relative contributions of these actions to shear resistance can be
determined by studying the kinematics of the critical shear crack as done for slender beams by
researchers including Campana et al. (2013), Cavagnis et al. (2015) and Huber et al. (2016). This paper
presents the results of four short-span beams without shear reinforcement tested as part of a larger
experimental programme at Imperial College London. The critical shear crack kinematics were
determined for each beam using three-dimensional (3D) digital image correlation (DIC). The resulting
crack kinematics are used to estimate the contribution of each shear transfer mechanism. The paper
discusses the influence of loading arrangement on the observed shear transfer contributions.

2. Tests
2.1. Description of the specimens and test procedure
The aim of the tests was to study shear enhancement in beams loaded with multiple concentrated loads
applied to the same beam within 2d of supports and at 3d where shear enhancement is minimal. All the beams

1755
described in this paper were the same apart from the loading arrangement which is shown in Figure 1. The
beams were simply supported over a span of 3350 mm and measured 250 mm wide × 500 mm
deep × 4350 mm long. The loading arrangements were as follows: 1) single point load P1 at 1.5d, 2) single
point load P2 at 3d, 3) point loads of P1 = 0.4P at 1.5d and P2 = 0.6P at 3d (Fig. 1a) and 4) three concentrated
loads of 0.2P at 1.1d, 0.2P at 1.9d and 0.6P at 3d (Fig. 1b). Figure 1 shows the geometry and reinforcement
details for each beam. The beams were all cast at the same time using ready mix concrete with 10 mm
limestone coarse aggregate. At the time of testing, the average concrete compressive cylinder strength was
41 MPa. The corresponding average tensile strength was 3 MPa. The flexural reinforcement comprised two
25 mm bars at the bottom and two 16 mm bars at the top. To ensure failure occurred in the short shear span,
the longer shear span was reinforced with 8 mm diameter links. Confining 8 mm diameter links were also
provided at the left hand end of the beam to enhance the anchorage of the flexural reinforcement. The yield
strength and elastic modulus of the reinforcement was as follows: 25 mm: fy = 540 MPa; Es = 200.6 GPa,
16 mm: fy = 550 MPa; Es = 194.9 GPa, 8 mm: fy = 510 MPa; Es = 200 GPa. Loading and bearing plates were
fabricated from steel and measured 250 mm wide × 100 mm long × 30 mm thick. Load was applied in
displacement control at an initial rate of around 0.2 mm/minute. This rate was approximately doubled
following flexural cracking to maintain a relatively constant loading rate in kN/minute. In beams with
multiple point loads, load was applied to the beam through spreader beams. Linear Variable Displacement
Transducers (LVDT) were positioned at selected locations as shown in Figure 1. Displacement fields were
measured with Digital Image Correlation (DIC) within the grey shaded regions marked on the beams in
Figure 1. The software Davis by LaVision (2018) was used to process the DIC images.
a)

b)

c)

Figure 1. Geometry and loading arrangements of: a) 2P-1.5d/3d-40:60-2φ25, b) 3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d-20:20:60-

2φ25 and c) cross-section details and naming of the specimens.

1756
2.2. Load-deflection response
The shear strengths of the beams are listed in Table 1. Beam P-1.5d, with a single point load at 1.5d,
had the greatest shear capacity as expected since the greater part of the load was transferred to the
support through direct strut action. Beam P-3d, with a single point load at 3d, had the least shear
resistance. The other two beams had similar strengths but very different load deflection (Figure 2a) and
cracking behaviours. All the beams failed in a brittle manner except 3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d, which had an
unusually ductile response. After opening of the critical shear crack, the load dropped by around 20%
before subsequently increasing to the maximum. At around 135 kN, beam 2P-1.5d/3d was accidentally
unloaded due to a malfunction of the hydraulic jack. After a short interval, the test was restarted and
continued uninterruptedly to failure. The shear resistances in Figure 2 are the reactions at the left hand
support with the specimen oriented as shown in Figure 1. The displacements in Figure 2 are those
measured at LVDT #4 in beam P-1.5d and at LVDT #6 in the remaining beams.

Table 1. Shear strength of beams.

Maximum shear force

Beam Type of failure
fc’ Test Flexure
(MPa) (kN) (kN)

3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d-20:20:60-2φ25 40.9 144 246 Shear

2P-1.5d/3d-40:60-2φ25 41.1 156 246 Shear
P-3d-2φ25 42.2 124 175 Shear
P-1.5d-2φ25 42.3 291 372 Shear

300 160

275
P-3d 140
250
2P-1.5d/3d
225 40:60 120
Shear resistance (kN)

P-1.5d
200
3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d 100
175 20:20:60
150 80

125
60
100

75 40

50
20
25

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8

a) b)
Maximum displacement (mm)
Figure 2. Load deflection curves: a) Complete, b) Enlarged view at smaller loads.

2.3. Failure process and crack pattern

Figure 3 shows the crack patterns at peak load and at failure. As outlined below, the critical shear crack
development exhibited many of the characteristics reported by Cavagnis et al. (2015, 2017). The crack
pattern in Figure 3a for beam P-1.5d is typical of that observed in short-span beams without shear
reinforcement. The critical crack development was Type 1 according to the classification of Cavagnis
et al. (2015). The lower shear crack in Figure 3a formed early on (0.44Vmax) at a distance of 135 mm
from the inner corner of the bearing plate. It extended steadily towards the inner corner of the loading
plate without disturbing the inclined direct strut transferring load to the support. The shorter upper shear
crack formed towards failure. It extended gradually from both ends, thereby, reducing the space
available for direct strut action in uncracked concrete. At failure, the upper and lower cracks merged as

1757
shown in Figure 3b. The failure crack formed very suddenly in beam P-3d without warning as can be
seen by comparing Figures 3c and 3d. This behaviour is critical crack development Type 4 according to
the classification of Cavagnis et al. (2015). Failure of beam 2P-1.5d/3d-40:60 resulted from extension
of an interlock crack from a flexural crack at around 0.96Vmax (see Figure 3e). The critical flexural crack
developed at 0.62Vmax. The critical shear crack extended from the top of the flexural crack towards the
flexural compression reinforcement. Failure occurred when the critical shear crack penetrated the
flexural compression zone and extended along the compression reinforcement (see Figure 3f).
Maximum load Failure
a) Vmax = 291 kN P-1.5d-2φ25 b) V = 38 kN
*

c) Vmax = 124 kN P-3d-2φ25 d) V = 20 kN

e) Vmax = 156 kN 2P-1.5d/3d-40:60-2φ25 f) V= 96 kN

g) Vmax = 143 kN 3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d-20:20:60-2φ25 h) V = 78 kN

Figure 3. Crack patterns and strain state at peak load and last step before total collapse. * Upper limit of
maximum normal strain is 350 mm/m in b) only.

1758
 Figure 4. Crack kinematics at maximum load (black line) and step before collapse (blue line) for all beams.

The critical crack development in beam 2P-1.5d/3d-40:60 was Type 3 according to the classification of
Cavagnis et al. (2015). The critical shear crack in 3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d-20:20:60 resulted from the propagation of

1759
a flexural crack, which appeared at 0.86Vmax. This crack propagated in a stable manner towards the
compression reinforcement. The bottom part of the crack joined a dowel crack. This type of critical crack
development is Type 2 according to the classification of Cavagnis et al. (2015).

3. Crack measurements
The critical shear crack kinematics were derived from the displacement field obtained with DIC software
using the approach described in Campana et al. (2013). The DIC software gives the position of every
point of the grid in each image relative to a known coordinate system. Hence, it is possible to track the
opening and sliding of cracks from the beginning to the end of a test. Figure 4 illustrates the crack
kinematics for all the beams at peak load and immediately before collapse due to loss of equilibrium,
i.e., the moment right before the formation of the failure crack pattern (right hand side of Fig.3). The
corresponding loads are indicated in Figure 5. Figure 4a shows crack displacements in beam P-1.5d in
which, near failure, the lower part of the critical crack extended upwards and joined a smaller shear
crack in the upper half of the beam. Figure 4b sheds light on the failure of P-3d-during which the top
part of the critical shear crack extended upwards to intersect a secondary crack. The secondary crack
was narrow at maximum load but its width increased significantly at failure.
The difference between the maximum crack widths in the beams at peak load is striking. The crack
width at peak load is least in beam P-3d, with load at 3d, which failed suddenly in shear (Figure 4b).
The unusually ductile behavior of 3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d-20:20:60 is reflected in very high maximum crack
widths of 10 mm at maximum load and 30 mm immediately before total collapse. Crack widths were an
order of magnitude smaller in beam 2P-1.5d/3d-40:60 which had a statically equivalent loading
arrangement (see Figure 4c). In beam 2P-1.5d/3d-40:60, the failure crack extended simultaneously from
a critical flexural crack from mid-depth of the beam towards the compression and tension reinforcement.

4. Contribution of shear resisting mechanisms

Shear is resisted in cracked reinforced concrete beams by the flexural compression zone, dowel action,
aggregate interlock and stirrups if present. However, as yet there is no general agreement about the
relative contributions of these resisting mechanisms at failure. Recent developments in digital image
correlation (DIC) have made it possible for the first time to accurately measure strains and crack
kinematics in beams failing in shear (Cavagnis et al., 2015, De Wilder et al., 2015, Huber et al., 2016)
Analysis of the crack kinematics of beams failing in shear (Campana et al., 2013, Cavagnis et al. 2015,
Huber et al., 2016) shows that the contribution of each mechanism depends on the crack pattern which
varies randomly between notionally identical beams. Despite this the overall contribution of the resisting
mechanisms shows relatively little scatter in notionally identical beams.
In this paper, the contribution of aggregate interlock was assessed using the commonly used two-
phase mechanical model of Walraven (1980). The model, which includes maximum aggregate size as
an input parameter, is assumed to be valid for aggregate with a maximum size of 10 mm even though
only validated by Walraven (1980) for a minimum maximum aggregate size of 16 mm. Dowel action
was assessed using the equation proposed by Baumman and Rusch (1970). Hordijk’s (1992) model was
used to assess the contribution of residual concrete tensile strength. Figure 5 shows for all the beams the
contributions of each shear resisting mechanism at maximum load and immediately before loss of
equilibrium. The contributions were calculated considering free bodies like that depicted in grey in
Figure 6. The contribution “P abv cr” in Figure 5 depicts the contribution of the loads applied directly
to the concrete above the critical shear crack (e.g. the two loads of 0.2P in Figure 6). The compression
zone contribution in Figure 5 is the difference between the applied shear force and the sum of all shear
actions plus any external load applied above the critical crack. Consequently, the contribution of the
compression zone depicted in Figure 5 is theoretically that not accounted for by other actions which can
be negative if the sum of the other shear resisting mechanisms exceeds the measured resistance. In some
beams, there is a significant contribution from dowel action at both peak load and immediately before
failure even though the contribution of aggregate interlock is small or zero. This arises because the
contribution of aggregate interlock, but not dowel action, reduces with increasing crack width for a given
sliding displacement.

1760
 In beam P-1.5d, with a single load at 1.5d, the majority of shear force was carried by the flexural
compression zone with minimal contribution from aggregate interlock and none from residual tensile
stress. Conversely, the dominant shear action in beam P-3d, with single load at 3d, was aggregate
interlock (72% at peak load). Arching action was dominant in beams 3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d and 2P-1.5/3d
since the inner loads were transmitted directly to the support through uncracked concrete. The
contributions of the other shear actions are very different for these two beams with aggregate interlock
and residual tensile strength contributing almost 15% of the maximum strength of 2P-1.5/3d but making
no contribution to 3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d. The negative contribution of the compression zone for 2P-1.5/3d
and P-3d is thought to result from Walraven’s (1980) model overestimating the contribution of the
aggregate interlock stresses as reported elsewhere (Cavagnis et al., 2017). However, the contribution of
dowel action also requires further consideration.

5. Conclusions
The paper presents the results of four beams, without shear reinforcement, tested to analyse the influence
of loading arrangement on shear enhancement. The crack kinematics were determined from
displacement fields obtained using DIC. The crack kinematics were used to estimate the contribution of
each shear action to resistance. The main conclusions are:
- The relative contribution of each shear resisting mechanism is highly dependent on the
location and shape of the critical shear crack which depends on the loading arrangement.
- The contribution of aggregate interlock was most significant (72%) at peak load in beam P-
3d loaded with a single point load at 3d from the support.
- Aggregate interlock made no significant contribution to the shear resistance of beam P-1.5d
loaded with a single point load at 1.5d from the support. In this beam failure was caused by
the critical shear crack splitting the flexural compression zone.

1,2
1,1
1
0,9
0,8
0,7
∑Vi / Vstep i

0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
-0,1
-0,2
V bf V bf V bf V bf
Vmax Vmax Vmax Vmax
collapse collapse collapse collapse
291.2 kN 289.7 kN 123.8 kN 121.9 kN 156.4 kN 154.7 kN 142.6 kN 97.5 kN
3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d -
P-1.5d P-3d 2P-1.5d/3d-40:60
20: 20: 60
Compr 86,6% 86,6% -6,3% -6,0% -1,3% -12,8% 18,4% 10,7%
P abv cr 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 58,9% 58,9% 58,9% 58,9%
Agg 3,2% 3,2% 71,9% 76,1% 14,9% 17,0% 1,9% 0,0%
Res 0,0% 0,0% 10,4% 5,6% 8,5% 17,7% 0,0% 0,0%
Dow 10,2% 10,2% 24,0% 24,3% 19,0% 19,2% 20,8% 30,4%
Compr: compression zone; P abv cr: point loads above the critical crack (e.g. loads of 0.2P in Figure 6);
Agg: aggregate interlock; Res: residual tensile stress and Dow: dowel action.
Figure 5. Contribution of each shear action for the failure load and the instant before collapse.

1761
 Figure 6. Vertical forces of each shear mechanism acting on the free body of 3P-1.1d/1.9d/3d-20:20:60-2φ25.

Acknowledgements
The first author wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the National Council for Scientific and
Technological Development (CNPq), through the Science Without Borders Programme, funded by the
Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology.

References
Baumann, T. & Rüsch, H. (1970). Tests for the analysis of dowel action of flexural reinforcement of reinforced
concrete beams (in German: Versuche zum Studium der Verdübelungswirkung der Biegezugbewehrung
eines Stahlbetonbalkens). Berlin, Germany: Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton.
Campana, S., Fernández Ruiz, M., Anastasi, A., & Muttoni, A. (2013). Analysis of shear-transfer actions on one-
way RC members based on measured cracking pattern and failure kinematics. Magazine of Concrete
Research, 65(6), 386-404. doi:10.1680/macr.12.00142
Cavagnis, F., Fernández Ruiz, M., & Muttoni, A. (2015). Shear failures in reinforced concrete members without
transverse reinforcement: An analysis of the critical shear crack development on the basis of test results.
Engineering Structures, 103, 157-173. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.09.015
Cavagnis, F., Fernández Ruiz, M., & Muttoni, A. (2017). An analysis of the shear‐transfer actions in reinforced
concrete members without transverse reinforcement based on refined experimental measurements.
Structural Concrete.
De Wilder, K., Lava, P., Debruyne, D., Wang, Y., De Roeck, G., & Vandewalle, L. (2015). Experimental
investigation on the shear capacity of prestressed concrete beams using digital image correlation.
Engineering Structures, 82, 82-92.
Hordijk, D. A. (1992). Tensile and tensile fatigue behaviour of concrete; experiments, modelling and analyses.
Heron, 37.
Huber, P., Huber, T. & Kollegger, J. (2016). Investigation of the shear behavior of RC beams on the basis of
measured crack kinematics. Engineering Structures, 113, 41-58.
LaVision. (2018). DaVis 10.0 Software. In L. GmbH (Ed.).
Walraven, J. C. (1980). Aggregate Interlock: A Theoretical and Experimental Investigation. PhD, Delft University
of Technology.

1762