S. Han et al.

Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115520

Fig. 6. Cross-section and reinforcement configuration of beam specimens.

Fig. 7. Test setup for beam specimens.

corresponding steel bar. It should be mentioned here that the measured
diameter of SF19-12 is lower than the required diameter for equal-
stiffness design due to the deviation in production, which slightly de­
creases its transverse shear capacity. Consequently, equal-stiffness SFCB
has equivalent transverse shear behavior compared with steel bar.
4.2. Failure modes of beams
The shear failure modes of reinforced concrete beams are usually
determined by the shear span-effective depth ratio, including deep beam
Fig. 8. Typical failure modes of steel bar and SFCB for the transverse shear test.
Equal-stiffness SFCB shows similar transverse shear failure mode to steel bar.
failure, shear compression failure, and flexural-shear failure [35]. In this
study, the shear span-effective depth ratio of all beam specimens is equal
to 2.5. As a consequence of prior design, all beam specimens including
steel bars reinforced concrete beams and hybrid-RC beams fail in shear
compression failure, as shown in Figs. 11 and 12. In the beginning, some
vertical flexural cracks are formed firstly at the midspan of beam. With
the application of higher load, the inclined cracks, i.e. flexural-shear
cracks, occur in the test shear span and develop towards both

6
S. Han et al.
Fig. 9. Load-deformation curves for transverse shear tests: (a) S10 and SF15-8; (b) S14 and SF19-12; (c) S16 and SF21-14; (d) S18 and SF23-16. Equal-stiffness SFCB
exhibits similar transverse shear behavior to steel bar.
Fig. 10. Transverse shear capacity. Equal-stiffness SFCB has similar transverse
shear capacity to steel bar.
supporting and loading points. Then the width of inclined cracks in­
creases obviously and the major shear crack is formed. Finally, concrete
near the loading points is crushed. It shows that the replacement of
equal-stiffness longitudinal SFCB and equal-strength FRP stirrups
doesn’t change the shear failure modes. Moreover, narrower inclined
cracks are observed in hybrid-RC beams compared with steel bars
reinforced concrete beams, which is further described in section 4.6.
4.3. Load-deflection behavior of beams
The load–deflection behavior for reinforced concrete beams without
and with stirrups are shown in Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. It shows
that the load–deflection behavior of hybrid-RC beams is similar to that
7
Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115520
of steel bars reinforced concrete beams. The load–deflection curves can
be divided into three stages, including the shear cracking stage, steady
growth stage of shear load, and descending stage. At the shear cracking
stage, all tested beams exhibit a linear manner, and the effect of the type
and reinforcement ratio of longitudinal reinforcement and stirrups is not
significant until the formation of inclined cracks. For beams without
stirrup, the formation of inclined crack leads to a significant decrease in
stiffness, as shown in Fig. 13. With the increase of reinforcement ratio of
longitudinal bar, the stiffness reduction caused by the formation of in­
clined crack decreases. For reinforced concrete beams with stirrups,
both steel stirrups and FRP stirrups can also decrease the stiffness
reduction caused by the formation of inclined cracks, as shown in
Fig. 14. It shows that both steel stirrups and FRP stirrups can provide
great restraint against the development of inclined cracks. This
enhancement increases with the reinforcement ratio of stirrups. Thus,
hybrid-RC beams exhibit similar shear failure mechanisms to steel bars
reinforced concrete beams.
The shear capacity is an important criteria. Hybrid-RC beams
without stirrup have higher shear capacity compared with steel bars
reinforced concrete beams without stirrup. The shear capacity of B-2SF,
B-3SF, and B-4SF is higher than that of B-2S, B-3S, and B-4S by 40.3%,
8.5%, 3.9%, respectively. It is mainly due to the post-yielding stiffness of
SFCB. The post-yielding stiffness of SFCB leads to larger compressive
zone and better restraint against the development of inclined cracks,
increasing the concrete contribution from compressed concrete and
aggregate interlock. Interestingly, this phenomenon is more obvious for
beams with lower longitudinal reinforcement ratio. This is because the
strain of longitudinal reinforcement for beams with lower longitudinal
reinforcement ratio is larger, which is more conducive to utilizing the
post-yielding stiffness of SFCB. Moreover, hybrid-RC beams with stir­
rups also have higher shear capacity compared with steel bar reinforced
concrete beams with stirrups. The shear capacity of B-4SF-200F, B-4SF-
120F, and B-4SF-80F is higher than that of B-4S-200S, B-4S-120S, and B-
4S-80S by 23.1%, 7.3%, 1.9%, respectively.
S. Han et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115520

Fig. 11. Failure modes of beams without stirrup. Hybrid-RC beams without stirrup have similar failure mode to steel bars reinforced concrete beams without stirrup.

Fig. 12. Failure modes of beams with stirrups. Hybrid-RC beams with stirrups also exhibit similar failure mode to steel bars reinforced concrete beams with stirrups.

4.4. Strain of longitudinal reinforcement distance of beam span (L1) and the mid-distance of test shear span
(L2), as shown in Fig. 7. The strain development of longitudinal bar for
The strain gauges are installed on the longitudinal bar at the mid- beams without stirrups is shown in Fig. 15. With the flexural cracks

8
S. Han et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115520

Fig. 13. Shear force versus deflection curves of beams without stirrup: (a) B-2S and B-2SF; (b) B-3S and B-3SF; (c) B-4S and B-4SF. Hybrid-RC beams without stirrup
have similar shear load–deflection behavior and higher shear capacity compared with steel bars reinforced concrete beams without stirrup.

Fig. 14. Shear force versus deflection curves of beams with stirrups: (a) B-4S-200S and B-4SF-200F; (b) B-4S-120S and B-4SF-120F; (c) B-4S-80S and B-4SF-80F.
Hybrid-RC beams with stirrups have similar shear load–deflection behavior and higher shear capacity compared with steel bars reinforced concrete beams
with stirrups.

Fig. 15. Strain development of longitudinal bar for beams without stirrup: (a) B-2S; (b) B-3S; (c) B-4S; (d) B-2SF; (e) B-3SF; (f) B-4SF. The post-yielding stiffness of
longitudinal SFCB contributes to higher shear capacity.

forming at about 13 kN, the strain longitudinal bar develops faster. The strain of about 0.25%, the restrain against the growth of inclined crack
strain L1 is larger than the strain L2 due to the larger moment at mid­ decreases obviously for steel bars reinforced concrete beams without
span. As the load increases, the inclined crack is formed, causing a larger stirrup. For hybrid-RC beams without stirrup, longitudinal SFCB exhibits
increment of the strain L2. With longitudinal steel bar yielding at the stable post-yielding stiffness. The outer FRP layer of SFCB is a linear

9
S. Han et al. Engineering Structures 278 (2023) 115520

elastic material. After the yielding of the inner steel bar of SFCB, the
increment of load can be resisted by the outer FRP layer. Therefore,
SFCB exhibits bilinear stress–strain behavior with stable post-yielding
stiffness, which is different from conventional steel bar, as shown in
Fig. 4. The post-yielding stiffness of SFCB can restrain the growth of
inclined crack and increase the compression region of cross-section,
leading to a larger shear capacity. Moreover, the lower longitudinal
reinforcement ratios of beams lead to a larger strain of longitudinal
reinforcement. The larger strain of longitudinal reinforcement is more
conducive to utilizing the post-yielding stiffness of SFCB. This explains
why the hybrid-RC beams have greater advantages in shear capacity
compared with steel bars reinforced concrete beams when the longitu­
dinal reinforcement ratio is lower. A similar enhancing effect from the
post-yielding stiffness of longitudinal SFCB on shear capacity can also be
observed in beams with stirrups, as shown in Fig. 16.

4.5. Strain of transverse reinforcement

Fig. 17. Strain development of stirrups. Compared with steel stirrups, equal-
The strain of stirrups is adopted to indicate how the stirrups engaged strength FRP stirrups can provide an equivalent contribution to shear capacity.
in resisting the shear load. The strain gauges are installed on the stirrups
along the anticipated shear crack, as shown in Fig. 7. The strain of
strain gauges and shear crack. To limit shear crack widths and maintain
stirrups is small in the initial stage, as shown in Fig. 17. With the for­
shear integrity of the concrete, ACI 440.1R-15 [23] recommends a strain
mation of inclined cracks, the stirrups are activated and the strain in­
limit of 0.004 for FRP stirrups. Based on the test results, this strain limit
crease steadily to withstand more load. The steel stirrups of steel bars
of 0.004 for FRP stirrups might be applied to hybrid-RC beams, but
reinforced concrete beams are activated at about 70 kN, while the FRP
further research is needed to determine the strain limit of FRP stirrups
stirrups of hybrid-RC beams are activated at about 105 kN. Under the
for hybrid-RC beams. Moreover, the contribution of steel stirrups and
same load, the strain of FRP stirrups is lower than steel stirrups despite
FRP stirrups to the shear strength of beams can be obtained based on the
the lower stiffness of FRP stirrups. These results reflect the larger shear
measured strain and tensile properties of stirrups. The ratio of FRP
cracking load and smaller shear crack width of hybrid-RC beams as
stirrups contribution for hybrid-RC beams to steel stirrups contribution
described in section 4.6, which are mainly due to the better restraint
for steel bars reinforced concrete beams is about 86% to 110%. It pre­
against inclined cracks provided by longitudinal SFCB. Then the shear
liminary proves that compared with steel stirrups, equal-strength FRP
failure of steel bars reinforced concrete beams occurs with lower shear
stirrups provide an equivalent contribution to shear capacity.
capacity, accompanied by the yielding of steel stirrups. It indicates that
the crushing of compressed concrete with excessive deformations of
steel stirrups is the main source of the failure of steel bars reinforced 4.6. Development of shear crack
concrete beams. By contrast, the strain of FRP stirrups at peak load
varies from 0.0032 to 0.0041, and the rupture of FRP stirrups doesn’t DIC system is applied to obtain the strain distribution in the concrete
occur. It should be mentioned that the measured strain is not the of beam specimens B-4S-80S and B-4SF-80F. The shear cracking patterns
maximum strain of stirrups due to the deviation between the position of at different load are shown in Fig. 18. For specimens B-4S-80S, several

Fig. 16. Strain development of longitudinal bar for beams with stirrups: (a) B-4S-200S; (b) B-4S-120S; (c) B-4S-80S; (d) B-4SF-200F; (e) B-4SF-120F; (f) B-4SF-80F.

10