Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Seismic strengthening of reinforced concrete beams using high-ductility

cementitious composite (HDCC)
Liying Guo a, Mingke Deng a, b, *, Ding Wei a, Zhengtao Qiu a, Zhifang Dong c, *
a
School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China
b
Key Lab of Structural Engineering and Earthquake Resistance, Ministry of Education (XAUAT), Xi’an 710055, China
c
College of Architecture & Civil Engineering, Shangqiu Normal University, Shangqiu 476000, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research investigated the seismic behaviors of shear-insufficient reinforced concrete (RC) beams strength­
RC beams ened with high-ductility cementitious composite (HDCC). Six cantilever beams, including two reference beams,
High-ductility cementitious composite (HDCC) two beams strengthened with HDCC jacket and two beams strengthened with steel bar mesh-reinforced HDCC
Seismic strengthening
jacket, were subjected to cyclic concentrated loading. The variable parameters were the strengthening schemes
Variable angle truss model
Shear capacity
(presence or absence of the steel bar mesh in the HDCC jacket) and shear span-to-depth ratio (2 or 4). The test
results showed that the shear capacity, ductility and energy dissipation capacity of the RC beams were
remarkably improved after strengthening with HDCC. Installing steel bar mesh in the HDCC jacket can further
enhance the deformation capacity and energy dissipation capacity of the HDCC-strengthened beams. However,
there was little difference between the shear capacity of the beams strengthened with the steel bar mesh-
reinforced HDCC and the shear capacity of the beams strengthened with HDCC because the steel bar mesh
could decrease the continuity and compactness of the HDCC strengthening layer. Finally, a calculation method
was used to estimate the shear capacity of the HDCC-strengthened beams based on the variable angle truss
model. This method was validated with the experimental results in this study and the existing literatures about
the beams strengthened with ECC or SHCC.

1. Introduction
A large number of existing reinforced concrete (RC) beams and
bridges need to be strengthened due to the improvement of the anti-
seismic requirement, changing usage, natural disasters, ageing and
environmental deterioration [1–3]. The demand for higher shear ca­
pacity is a case of critical concern since shear failure of RC beams is
sudden and shows poor energy dissipation capacity.
High-ductility cementitious composite (HDCC) is a class of short
fiber-reinforced cementitious composite similar to engineered cemen­
titious composite (ECC) [4–7] and strain-hardening cementitious com­
posite (SHCC) [8,9]. HDCC showed high tensile strength, stable strain-
hardening behavior and multi-cracking characteristic under tension
action, and high toughness under compression action [10–12]. HDCC
can absorb massive amounts of energy during earthquakes due to high
ductility [13,14]. Thus, HDCC can be used for strengthening the shear-
deficient RC beams to enhance the seismic performance of building
structures. Up to now, the studies on shear strengthening of RC beams
using HDCC were mainly limited to simply supported beams under
monotonic loading [15–19]. The form of the simply supported beams
cannot reflect accurately the end conditions and force states of RC frame
beams in real structures under seismic load. To simulate realistically the
fixed support conditions and seismic loads, Kim [20] and Huang [21]
conducted the cyclic loading tests of the RC beams reinforced with ECC
or SHCC. The results indicated that the ECC strengthening could in­
crease the energy dissipation of the original RC beams about one time,
and outperformed the conventional mortar-based ferrocement
strengthening in controlling cracks. However, they only compared the
influence of the different ECC jacketing schemes on the seismic perfor­
mance of the strengthened beams. The seismic behavior and failure
mode of the strengthened beams affected by different shear span-to
depth ratios still need to be further explored. Moreover, when the
shear capacity of the strengthened RC beams is estimated, the simple
superposition method based on the assumption that the original beam
and the shear strengthening layer simultaneously reach their maximum
shear resistance is unreasonable [22,23]. The contributions of the

* Corresponding authors at: School of Civil Engineering, Xi’an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi’an 710055, China (M. Deng).
E-mail addresses: dengmingke@126.com (M. Deng), dongzhifang@xauat.edu.cn (Z. Dong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114715
Received 17 February 2022; Received in revised form 3 July 2022; Accepted 20 July 2022
Available online 28 July 2022
0141-0296/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Guo et al. Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715

Fig. 1. Dimensions and reinforcement arrangement of original specimens (mm).

original RC beams and external strengthening material are interacting
parameters [24,25]. In the strengthened beams, the premature yielding
of the longitudinal reinforcements or the crushing of the original con­
crete can reduce the development of the shear stress of the strengthening
material. Thus, a reasonable analytical method considered the effect of
the original reinforcements and concrete for predicting the shear ca­
pacity of the strengthened beams should be established.
The objective of this research is investigating systematically the
effectiveness of applying HDCC for seismic strengthening of RC beams.
Hence, six cantilever beams were tested under cyclic concentrated
loading. The variables included (a) presence or absence of the steel bar
mesh in the HDCC jacket, and (b) shear span-to-depth ratio. The effect of
different variables on the failure mode, hysteretic curve, skeleton curve,
energy-dissipation capacity and stiffness degradation were analyzed. In
addition, the variable angle truss model was used to predict the shear
capacity of the beams strengthened with HDCC. This model considered
different failure mechanisms of the strengthened beams, including
flexural-shear interaction failure resulted from the yield of the original
longitudinal reinforcements and stirrups, and shear web-crushing failure
resulted from the crushing of the original concrete. Moreover, the pre­
dicted results from the variable angle truss model were compared with
the test results and the predicted values from the superposition method
proposed by Kim [20].
2. Experimental program
2.1. Specimen design
The specimens were designed as the form of cantilever beams to
simulate half the clear span of realistic beams connected to the columns.
Because the main objective of this work was to evaluate a strengthening
method for the existing deficient RC beams, the prototype beam was
designed referring to the old version of Chinese code for design of
concrete structures (GBJ 10-1989). The cross-section of the un-
strengthened beams was 200 mm × 300 mm (width × depth). The
effective length of the shear span of the specimens was 550 mm and
1100 mm for the shear span-to-depth ratio equal to 2 and 4, respectively.
The shear span-to-depth ratio (λ) was defined as the ratio of the shear
span (a) to the effective depth (dv) of beam cross-section, λ = a/dv. For λ
= 2, six 22 mm-diameter ribbed steel bars were applied as the longitu­
dinal reinforcements of the specimens. For λ = 4, six 25 mm-diameter
ribbed steel bars were applied as the longitudinal reinforcements of the
specimens. 6 mm-diameter plain steel bars were used as the stirrups at
an interval of 200 mm. The thickness of the concrete protective layer
was 20 mm. Such design was expected to guide the shear-controlled
failure mode. The geometrical dimensions and reinforcement arrange­
ment of the un-strengthened beam are shown in Fig. 1. The casting steps
of the RC beams were supporting formwork, binding and installing the
steel bars, pouring concrete, and dismantling formwork.
A total of six specimens were designed. A summary of the test pa­
rameters is listed in Table 1. The specimens were divided into two series
according to the shear span-to-depth ratio. Specimen B-2-C and B-4-C
were reference specimens. Specimen B-2-H and B-4-H were strength­
ened with HDCC only. Specimen B-2-SH and B-4-SH were strengthened
with steel bar mesh-reinforced HDCC. The steel bar mesh had a bar
diameter of 6 mm (with the mesh spacing of 200 mm × 200 mm). The
steel bar mesh was terminated at the top of the foundation supports. The
RC beams were strengthened using four-sided jacket. The thickness of
the strengthening layer was 25 mm. Before strengthening, the surface of
the beams was roughened to improve the bond performance between the
concrete substrate and new strengthening layer. Then, the steel bar mesh
was installed (for B-2-SH and B-2-SH). The HDCC was troweled manu­
ally onto the surface of the pre-wetted RC beams. The HDCC layer was
plastered in two layers. The first layer with a thickness of about 15 mm
was plastered. After the initial setting of the first layer, the second layer
with a thickness of about 10 mm was plastered. Finally, two wood
formworks were erected on the two sides of the strengthened beams to
hold the fresh HDCC until attaining desired shape. The details of the

Table 1
Main parameters of all specimens.
Series Specimen ID Longitudinal reinforcements Stirrup Effective length a Strengthening material Cross-section(mm × mm)

Series 1 B-2-C 6 6@200 550 / 200 × 300

22
B-2-H 6 6@200 550 HDCC 250 × 350
22
B-2-SH 6 6@200 550 Steel bar mesh + HDCC 250 × 350
22
Series 2 B-4-C 6 6@200 1100 / 200 × 300
25
B-4-H 6 6@200 1100 HDCC 250 × 350
25
B-4-SH 6 6@200 1100 Steel bar mesh + HDCC 250 × 350
25

2
L. Guo et al. Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715

Fig. 2. The cross-sectional details of the strengthened specimens (mm).

2.2. Materials properties

Table 2
Mechanical properties of steel bars.
2.2.1. Concrete and steel bars
The type of Diameter d/ Yield strength Ultimate Elongation The tested cubic compressive strength of the concrete (fcu) was 32.61
steel bar (mm) fy/MPa strength fu/
MPa. The average value was measured by three cubes with 150 × 150 ×
δ/%
MPa
150 mm3 in dimension. The cubes were cast alongside with the beam
HPB300 6 483.91 616.55 11.7
specimens and cured at the same conditions. The steel bars were tested
HRB400 22 430.46 592.61 20.9
HRB400 25 437.73 614.56 19.8 according to the National Standard of China [26]. Three standard
samples were prepared for each type of steel bar. The mechanical
properties of the steel bars are presented in Table 2.
Table 3
2.2.2. HDCC
Mixed proportions of HDCC (kg/m3).
The mixed proportions of the HDCC are presented in Table 3. 2 %
Cement Fly Silica Mineral Sand Water Water PVA
volume content of short polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers was randomly
ash fume powder reducer fiber
distributed in the HDCC. The HDCC composite was prepared using a 40-
652 534 59 177 427 344 8 26 L concrete mixer. The cement, fly ash, silica fume, mineral powder and
sand were firstly mixed for 2 min in dry condition. The water reducer
strengthened specimens are shown in Fig. 2. After strengthening, all was dissolved in prepared clean water. Then, the water was added and
specimens were cured by spraying water on a daily basis and covering mixed for 3 min. Finally, the PVA fibers were added and mixed for
with wet towels for 28 days. another 3 min. The geometric indicators and mechanical properties of
the single PVA fiber are shown in Table 4. The properties of the PVA
fibers were provided by the manufacturer.
Under uniaxial tensile action, the stress-strain curve and the crack
pattern of the HDCC material are shown in Fig. 3. The tensile

Table 4
Geometric indicators and mechanical properties of single short PVA fiber.
Length/mm Diameter/μm Aspect ratio/(×103) Elastic modulus/GPa Tensile strength/MPa Elongation ratio/% Specific gravity/(g/cm3)

12 39 0.31 40 1600 7 1.3

Fig. 3. (a) Stress-strain curve. (b) Crack pattern in gauge length.

3
L. Guo et al.
Fig. 4. Test setup.
Fig. 5. Loading procedure.
performances of the HDCC were measured by three dog-bone-shaped
specimens. The dimensions of the HDCC tensile specimens were deter­
mined according to Ref. [13,14]. The HDCC showed typical strain-
hardening and multi-cracking behaviors under tensile loading. As
loading progressed, the tensile stress fell and rose with the occurrence
and development of fine cracks on the surface of the tensile specimens.
The crack spacing on the HDCC tensile specimens was less than 9 mm in
average. The maximum crack width was less than 0.3 mm at peak state.
The average values of the tensile strength and ultimate tensile strain of
the HDCC were 4.84 MPa and 1.55 %, respectively. The average cubic
compressive strength of the HDCC was 61.32 MPa, which was measured
by three same cubes with 100 × 100 × 100 mm3 in dimension.
2.3. Test setup
The test setup for simulating seismic-type cyclic load is shown in
Fig. 4. The foundation supports of the cantilever beams were fixed with
high-strength anchor rods. The beams were tested under cyclic load. The
concentrated force was applied by a MTS actuator.
In order to observe the cracking load and yield load of the specimens,
the force-control loading procedure can be chosen in the elastic stage.
After the specimens yield, the displacement-control loading procedure
can be adopted because the displacement value of the specimens is large.
According to the Ref. [27], the force-displacement hybrid loading pro­
cedure was used, as shown in Fig. 5. The force-control mode was
adopted when the load-displacement relationship showed linear
behavior. The increment of the applied load was 20 kN, and each
loading step looped once. The displacement-control mode was adopted
when the load-displacement behavior changed from linearity to
4
Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715
nonlinearity. The displacement increment respectively was 1.5 mm and
3.0 mm for specimens in series 1 and specimens in series 2, and each
loading step cycled three times. When the bearing capacity of the
specimens fell below 85 % of the peak load, the loading was ended.
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Failure modes
The final cracks patterns of all specimens are shown in Fig. 6.
(1) Specimen B-2-C failed in shear mode. Specimen B-4-C failed in
flexural-shear mode accompanied with bond failure of the lon­
gitudinal reinforcements due to the large shear span-to-depth
ratio and large longitudinal reinforcements ratio. For the refer­
ence specimens, after the stirrups yielded, the diagonal cracks
developed rapidly. The concrete cover seriously spalled off due to
the brittle behaviors of concrete.
(2) Specimen B-2-H and B-4-H failed in flexural-shear mode. The
flexural cracks on the middle of the strengthened beams extended
obliquely to the end of the beams and developed into shear
cracks. The stirrups yielded after the longitudinal reinforcements
on the beam end yielded. The beams failed due to the widening of
the shear cracks. After strengthening with HDCC, the brittle
failure modes of RC beams were ameliorated. For the specimens
strengthened with HDCC, the integrity of the specimens was
maintained well due to the PVA fibers bridging effect. The mul­
tiple cracking patterns appeared in HDCC-strengthened
specimens.
(3) Both Specimen B-2-SH and B-4-SH failed in flexural-shear mode.
More flexural cracks appeared on specimen B-2-SH and B-4-SH
compared to specimen B-2-H and B-4-H. The presence of steel bar
mesh in the jacket increased the shear strength of beams, thus the
flexural behavior of specimen B-2-SH and B-4-SH increased.
However, the multiple cracking pattern that exhibited in the
specimens strengthened with HDCC was absent in the specimens
strengthened with steel bar mesh-reinforced HDCC.
3.2. Hysteretic behavior
The load-displacement hysteretic curves of all specimens are shown
in Fig. 7. The hysteretic curves of all specimens showed different degrees
of pinching behavior. This is due to that large-diameter longitudinal
steel bars result in a weaker bond force between steel bars and concrete.
The slip deformation between concrete and longitudinal reinforcements
is large.
(1) Specimen B-2-C showed poor hysteretic behavior, and the pinch
effect phenomenon was significant. Owing to the brittle shear
failure, the load-bearing capacity of specimen B-2-C dropped
sharply when the maximum shear strength was reached.
Compared with specimen B-2-C, the number of hysteresis loops of
specimen B-4-C was more and the carrying capacity of specimen
B-4-C degenerated more slowly. This is due to that the section
curvature of beams before failing increases with the increase of
the shear span-to-depth ratio.
(2) Compared with the corresponding reference specimens, the
HDCC-strengthened specimens showed a better hysteretic
response, which was described by larger areas of hysteretic loops
and slower strength degradation. Tension stiffening due to the
bridging effect of the PVA fiber in the HDCC gave the HDCC-
strengthened specimens more shear strength and greater stiff­
ness as well as more effectively controllable deflection tendencies
than the reference specimens.
L. Guo et al. Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715

Fig. 6. Failure mode of specimens.

(3) Compared with the HDCC strengthening scheme, the steel bar (2) The peak load of specimen B-2-SH only increased 4.5 % than that
mesh-reinforced HDCC strengthening scheme was more effective of specimen B-2-H. Moreover, the peak load of specimen B-4-SH
in enhancing the cyclic performance of the shear-deficient beams. decreased 9.8 % than that of specimen B-4-H. In the strengthened
jacket, the existence of steel bar mesh could interrupt the conti­
nuity of the PVA fibers in HDCC and thus impose the negative
3.3. Shear strength and deformation capacity
influence on the tensile properties of HDCC.
(3) The ultimate displacement of specimen B-2-H increased 66.5 %
The skeleton curves of all specimens are displayed in Fig. 8. The test
than that of specimen B-2-C. The ultimate displacement of spec­
results are shown in Table 5, including the load (P) and the corre­
imen B-4-H increased 24.8 % than that of specimen B-4-C. The
sponding displacement (Δ) at the shear cracking point, yield point, peak
HDCC could effectively increase the deformation capacity of the
point and ultimate point, respectively. The shear cracking point was the
RC beams with deficient stirrups, which was mainly since the
point where the first shear crack was observed. The yield points were
increased bearing capacity and the strain-hardening behavior of
determined by the energy method [28]. The ultimate load was equal to
HDCC.
85 % of the peak load. The ductility factor is defined as the ratio of the
(4) As the shear span-to-depth ratio increased, the increment of the
ultimate displacement to the yield displacement [12].
ultimate displacement of the strengthened beam decreased. For
the shear span-to-depth ratio was equal to 2, after strengthening,
(1) The peak load of specimen B-2-H increased 42.3 % compared to
the failure mode of the beam was changed from shear mode to the
specimen B-2-C. The peak load of specimen B-4-H increased 53.8
flexural-shear mode, the plastic deformation of the beam
% than that of specimen B-4-C. The high tensile strength of the
increased significantly. For the shear span-to-depth ratio was
HDCC provided part of the shear capacity, and the confinement
equal to 4, the longitudinal reinforcements of the reference beam
effect of the jackets restrained effectively the widening of the
has reached yield, the development of the deformation of the
shear cracks and the spelling of the concrete protective layer.
strengthened beam was limited.
Therefore, the shear capacity of the strengthened beams was
significantly increased.

5
L. Guo et al. Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715

Fig. 7. Load-displacement hysteretic curves.

Fig. 8. Skeleton curves of the specimens.

Table 5
Experimental results of all specimens.
Specimen Cracking point Yield point Peak point Ultimate point Ductility factor Failure mode
ID
Pcr/kN Δcr/mm Py/kN Δy/mm Pm/kN Δm/mm Δu/mm

B-2-C 60.24 0.59 131.12 2.50 161.17 4.61 7.47 2.99 Shear failure
B-2-H 99.93 1.22 187.87 3.76 230.16 6.54 12.44 3.31 Flexural-shear
failure
B-2-SH 99.91 1.30 201.63 3.71 240.44 6.32 12.70 3.42 Flexural-shear
failure
B-4-C 40.04 1.96 88.92 7.95 105.41 15.01 20.88 2.63 Flexural-shear
failure
B-4-H 99.70 5.87 136.47 9.73 162.17 16.47 26.06 2.68 Flexural-shear
failure
B-4-SH 70.01 4.12 129.45 10.69 146.36 18.07 29.54 2.76 Flexural-shear
failure

Note: Pcr, Py and Pm are the shear cracking load, yield load and peak load, respectively. Δcr, Δy, Δm and Δu are the shear cracking displacement, yield displacement,
peak displacement and ultimate displacement, respectively.

6
L. Guo et al.
Table 6
Cumulative energy dissipation values of specimens at key points E/ (kN⋅mm).
Specimen ID Yield point Peak point Ultimate point
B-2-C 554 1890 4584
B-2-H 1138 3714 12,172
B-2-SH 1132 4285 12,841
B-4-C 974 4766 8739
B-4-H 2165 7463 18,170
B-4-SH 2560 8109 23,403
(5) Compared with specimen B-2-H, the ultimate displacement and
ductility factor of specimen B-2-SH was increased by 2.1 % and
3.3 %, respectively. Compared with specimen B-4-H, the ultimate
displacement and ductility factor of specimen B-4-SH was
increased by 13.4 % and 3.0 %, respectively. Installing steel bar
mesh in the HDCC jackets can further increase the displacement
ductility and deformation capacity of the HDCC-strengthened
beams. This may be since that the external steel bar mesh
restrained the widening of the shear cracks, which postponed the
degradation of aggregate interlock capacity of concrete.
3.4. Energy dissipation capacity
The energy dissipation capacity of the specimen in a loading cycle
was considered as the area enclosed by the corresponding load-
displacement hysteresis loop [29]. The cumulative energy dissipation
of each specimen at the specified target displacement can be calculated
by summing the areas of all hysteresis loops before the target displace­
ment. The cumulative energy dissipation values (E) of the specimens at
yield point, peak point and ultimate point are reported in Table 6.
(1) Compared with specimen B-2-C, the total cumulative energy
dissipation value of specimen B-2-H and B-2-SH were increased
by 165.5 % and 180.1 %, respectively. Compared with specimen
B-4-C, the total cumulative energy dissipation value of specimen
B-4-H and B-4-SH were increased by 107.9 % and 167.8 %,
respectively. HDCC strengthening can increase remarkably the
energy dissipation capacity of the shear-deficient RC beams.
(2) After strengthening with HDCC, the peak load and ultimate
displacement of the specimens were enhanced significantly. And
the HDCC-strengthened specimens formed good energy dissi­
pating system due to the multiple cracking behaviors. Therefore,
the total cumulative energy dissipation values of the beams were
significantly increased. The insertion of the steel bar mesh in the
HDCC jacket can further enhance the energy dissipation capacity
of the beams due to the increased ultimate displacement.
K
Fig. 9. Curves of stiffness degradation.
7
Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715
(3) Under same strengthening scheme, with the increase of the shear
span-to-depth ratio, the increment of the cumulative energy
dissipation values decreased after strengthening. This is due to
that the energy dissipation of the beams mainly depend on the
longitudinal reinforcements with the increase of the shear span-
to-depth ratio.
3.5. Stiffness degradation
Fig. 9 showed the stiffness degradation behaviors of all specimens.
The secant stiffness (K) of the specimens was defined as the slope of the
peak-to-peak line in each hysteretic loop, namely, the ratio between the
peak load and the corresponding displacement. The secant stiffness can
be calculated by Eq. (1).
| + Pi | + | − Pi |
Ki = (1)
| + Δi | + | − Δi |
where +Pi and − Pi are positive and negative peak load of the i-th loading
step, respectively. +Δi and − Δi are the displacements corresponding to
+Pi and − Pi, respectively.
(1) Compared with the corresponding reference specimens, the
stiffness degeneration rate of the HDCC-strengthened specimens
was slower after the yield point, and the stiffness degradation
curves of the HDCC-strengthened specimens were longer. This is
because the HDCC jacket delayed the development of the shear
cracks and restrained the peeling of concrete.
(2) Compared with specimen B-2-H, specimen B-2-SH showed larger
initial stiffness and slower stiffness degeneration rate. On the
contrary, the initial stiffness of specimen B-4-SH was smaller
compared to specimen B-4-H. This may result from the decreased
compactness of the HDCC in specimen B-4-SH.
4. Estimating bearing capacity
Colotti C [22,23] proposed a variable angle truss model for esti­
mating the shear capacity of the RC beams strengthened with FRP. This
model considered all possible shear failure mechanisms of the
strengthened beams, including the flexural-shear interaction failure
mode and shear web-crushing failure mode. This model also considered
the effects of the variable crack angle and shear span-to-depth ratio.
Owing to the high tensile strength and strain-hardening behavior of the
HDCC, the contribution of the HDCC strengthening layer can be regar­
ded as the stirrups or FRP [20]. Therefore, the variable angle truss model
was used to calculate the shear capacity of the RC beams strengthened
with HDCC in this study.
K
L. Guo et al. Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715

Fig. 10. Equilibrium scheme for bending-shear.

M V2
+ =1 (5)
Tdv 2pTdv
Substituting M = Va into Eq. (5), the shear capacity of beams (V) can
be obtained.
(√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
2Tdv
V=p a2 + − a (6)
p

For the beams with small or without stirrups, p≈0, thus V cannot be
valid. The kinematic solution can be used to get the shear capacity of RC
beams with small or without stirrups. A failure mechanism consisting of
a rotation about a load point with an inclined yield line can be assumed,
as shown in Fig. 11. The shear force V can be calculated by equating the
internal work (Wi) and external work (We). The work dissipated during
the failure concludes two parts: the contributions from the stirrups
Fig. 11. Kinematic mechanism for bending-shear. crossing the yield line and the longitudinal reinforcements.
∫Δ
1
4.1. Variable angle truss model Wi = pδv (x)dx + Tδh0 = pωΔ2 + T ωdv (7)
0 2
In Ref. [22,23], an RC beam can be considered as a plane truss, as
We = M ω + Vδv0 = ω(M + VΔ) = ω(Va + VΔ) (8)
shown in Fig. 10. The compression concrete and longitudinal tensile
reinforcements serve as the upper and lower stringers, respectively. The By equating Wi = We, getting
diagonal concrete struts and shear reinforcements can be considered as
pΔ2 Tdv
the web element. The shear link force of the strengthened beams is V= + (9)
2(a + Δ) (a + Δ)
provided by internal stirrups and the external HDCC layer, which is
described by pis and peH, respectively. Substituting Δ = dvcotθ and cotθ = a/dv into Eq. (9), the shear force V
The equilibrium conditions are as follows: is got, as shown in Eq. (10).
V = pdv cotθ (2) pa Tdv
V= + (10)
4 2a
M V
T = + cotθ (3) The minimum upper bound requires dV
= 0, getting Δ =
dv 2 dΔ
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
a2 + 2Td − a. Owing to cotθ = dΔv = ad2 + pd and cotθ⩽dav , thus, Eq.
v 2 2T a
p v
− dv
v
M V
C= − + cotθ (4) (10) is valid for p⩽
2Ty dv
.
dv 2 3a2

where V is shear force; M is flexural moment; C is compression force; p is (2) Shear web-crushing failure
the distributed equivalent vertical link force; d is the depth of beam, dv
= 0.9d; θ is the angle of critical inclined crack. The beams failed under shear-compression composite stress state.
Under shear and bending state, the strengthened beams may occur The relationship between the shear force and the concrete compression
flexural-shear interaction failure mode due to the yielding of the bottom stress is shown in Eq. (11).
longitudinal reinforcements and the stirrups. Beams also may occur
V = fc bdv sinθcosθ (11)
shear web-crushing failure mode due to the crushing of diagonal con­
crete struts.
where b is the width of beam, fc is effective compression strength of
concrete.
(1) Flexural-shear interaction failure √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
Substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (11), obtaining cotθ = bfpc − 1. The
For RC beams with stirrups, substituting cotθ = V/pdv into Eq. (3), shear capacity V is obtained.
the relationship between M and V can be expressed as Eq. (5).

8
L. Guo et al. Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715

Table 7
Comparisons of experimental results and predicted results.
Specimen Ve/kN Vu/kN Vu/Ve Vta /kN Vta /Ve Vtb /kN Vtb /Ve

B-2-C 161.17 139.31 0.86 89.36 0.55 89.36 0.55

B-2-H 230.16 192.50 0.84 135.62 0.59 153.64 0.67
B-4-C 105.41 114.60 1.09 86.32 0.82 86.32 0.82
B-4-H 162.17 155.83 0.96 132.58 0.82 150.60 0.93
CB-2[16] 92.50 91.79 0.99 44.29 0.48 44.29 0.48
CB-3[16] 62.50 61.20 0.98 41.95 0.67 41.95 0.67
SB-20–2[16] 145.00 111.99 0.77 82.93 0.57 86.45 0.60
SB-20–3[16] 75.00 89.41 1.19 80.59 1.07 84.11 1.12
B1[19] 129.00 135.09 1.05 44.02 0.34 44.02 0.34
B1-15[19] 179.50 159.33 0.89 79.85 0.45 83.85 0.47
B1-25[19] 179.00 171.75 0.96 103.74 0.58 111.49 0.62
B2[19] 60.50 67.54 1.12 39.22 0.65 39.22 0.65
B2-15[19] 91.50 91.50 1.00 75.05 0.82 79.05 0.86
B2-25[19] 135.00 110.27 0.82 98.94 0.73 106.69 0.79
B2W1[19] 130.00 148.20 1.14 69.13 0.53 69.13 0.53
B2W1-25[19] 203.00 202.49 1.00 123.11 0.61 138.19 0.68
B2W2[19] 139.50 155.09 1.11 81.27 0.58 81.27 0.58
B2W2-15[19] 181.00 186.63 1.03 113.66 0.63 122.04 0.67
B2W2-25[19] 220.00 208.48 0.95 135.25 0.61 150.33 0.68
B2W3[19] 216.00 215.54 1.00 151.67 0.70 151.67 0.70
B2W3-25[19] 246.00 265.15 1.08 206.01 0.84 220.73 0.90
CSN[20] 221.50 217.20 0.98 222.26 1.00 222.26 1.00
CSF-LL[20] 302.85 282.35 0.93 285.68 0.94 305.80 1.01
CSF-LH[20] 253.00 280.31 1.11 282.80 1.12 299.37 1.18
B-CONT[21] 130.55 110.11 0.84 149.45 1.14 149.45 1.14
B-E[21] 143.30 136.76 0.95 209.65 1.46 199.77 1.39
F0S0[31] 57.50 61.53 1.07 80.62 1.40 80.62 1.40
EF0S0[31] 60.50 70.45 1.16 103.70 1.71 104.96 1.73
Average / / 1.00 / 0.80 / 0.83
Coefficient of variation / / 0.11 / 0.41 / 0.39

Note: Ve is the experimental results of shear capacity. Vu is the calculated results according to the method proposed in this study. Vta and Vtb is the calculated results
according to the two method proposed by Kim [20] Vta = Vc + Vs + Vea , Vtb = Vc + Vs + Veb .

√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
bfc √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ peHy is the action of the external HDCC shear strengthening layer. Asv is
V = pdv − 1 = dv p(bfc − p) (12) the cross-sectional area of the internal stirrups. fyv the yield strength of
p
the internal stirrups. si is the spacing of the internal stirrups. t is the
When bfpc ⩽2, i.e. p⩾bf2c , the equivalent stirrups force do not yield when thickness of the strengthening layer. ft,H is the tensile strength of the
HDCC.
the concrete diagonal struts failed. p = bf2c , the shear load is obtained
V = 12 bdv fc . Ty = Asl fly + AH ft,H (17)
According to the equilibrium (Fig. 10), kinematic (Fig. 11), and yield
conditions (T = Ty , p = py ), the shear capacity (Vu) of the strengthened in Eq. (17), Asl and fly are the cross-sectional area and the yield strength
of the longitudinal reinforcements, respectively. AH is the cross-sectional
RC beams under bending and shear action is expressed in Eq. (13). Vu,1
area of the HDCC at the longitudinal tension layer.
and Vu,2 are the shear capacity for considering the flexural-shear inter­
action failure mode and shear web-crushing failure mode, respectively.
4.2. Comparison with other analytical method
Vu = min(Vu,1 ; Vu,2 ) (13)
⎧ The existing methods for calculating the shear capacity of the beams
⎪
⎪
⎪
py a Ty dv
+ for 0 < py ⩽p0 =
2Ty dv strengthened with ECC/SHCC were based on superposition principle, as
⎪
⎨ 4 2a 3a2 shown in Eq. (18). The shear contributions of concrete and stirrups can
Vu,1 = (√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) (14) be calculated by American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318 [30], as
⎪
⎪ 2Ty dv
⎪
⎩ py
⎪ a2 +
py
− a for py > p0 given by Eq. (19) and Eq. (20). Kim [20] proposed two approaches to
predict the shear capacity of the SHCC strengthening layer, including:
⎧ √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
( ) (1) the SHCC layer on both sides of RC beam were assumed as the single
⎪ py 1
⎪
⎪ dv py bfc − py for 0 < ⩽
⎨ rectangular beam, and (2) the contribution of the SHCC layer was
bfc 2
Vu,2 = (15) assumed as the shear reinforcements. Based on the two assumptions, the
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩
1
bdv fc for
py
>
1 shear capacity of the HDCC strengthening layer is expressed as Eq. (21)
2 bfc 2 and Eq. (22), respectively.

where py is the total equivalent yield force of the stirrups. Ty is the total Vt = Vc + Vs + Ve (18)
tensile yield force in the longitudinal reinforcements and external flex­
ural strengthening layer. where Vt is the total shear capacity of the strengthened beams, Vc is the
shear capacity provided by the concrete, vs is the shear capacity pro­
py = pisy + peHy =
Asv fyv
+ 2tft,H (16) vided by the stirrups, Ve is the shear capacity provided by the external
si strengthening layer.

in Eq. (16), pisy is the equivalent yield force of the internal stirrups, and

9
L. Guo et al. Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715

V /V V
Vat /V

Vbt /V

V V

Fig. 12. Comparison between the predicted values and experimental results.

√̅̅̅̅
[ ] 5. Conclusions
(19)
′
Vc = 0.16 f c + 17ρw (dv /a) bdv
( )/ This paper presented the experimental investigation on the seismic
Vs = Asv fyv dv si (20) behaviors of RC beams strengthened with HDCC. The conclusions are as
[( ′) ] follows:
Vea = 2 0.11fc (β1 c)t + ft,H t(dv − c)cotθ (21)
( (1) RC beams failed in brittle shear failure, accompanied by the
t)
Veb = φ2tft,H d + (22) crushing of concrete. The strengthened beams failed in flexural-
2
shear mode, no spalling of concrete occurred due to the protec­
where fc is the cylindrical compressive strength of concrete, ρw is the
′ tion of the HDCC layer.
(2) Compared with the reference beams, the increments of the shear
longitudinal reinforcement ratio, c is the height of the compression zone,
capacity, ultimate displacement and total cumulative energy
β1 is the ratio of the depth of equivalent rectangular stress block of the
dissipation value of the beams strengthened with the HDCC were
external shear strengthening layer to depth of neutral axis, β1 = 0.82, φ
42.3–53.8 %, 24.8–66.5 % and 107.9–165.5 %, respectively.
is the strength reduction factor of the HDCC, φ = 0.85.
(3) The insertion of the steel bar mesh in the HDCC strengthening
The predicted results from the aforementioned three methods are
layer were beneficial in improving the deformation capacity and
listed in Table 7 and Fig. 12. The details of the strengthened beams in
energy dissipation capacity of the strengthened specimens.
Ref. [16,19–21,31]are listed in Table 8. The model proposed in this
However, the existence of steel mesh could interrupt the conti­
study shows more accurate predictions for the shear capacity of the
nuity of the PVA fibers in the HDCC.
strengthened beams, compared to the other two models proposed by
(4) Based on the variable angle truss model, an evaluation of the
Kim [20]. The superposition method is only appropriate for the beams
shear capacity of the RC beams strengthened with HDCC was
with small stirrups or without stirrups, i.e., the shear capacity of the
established. The calculated results showed good agreement with
strengthened beams is not limited by the original longitudinal re­
the test results.
inforcements and concrete. Some predicted values from the two models
proposed by Kim are small. This is because that the predicted value of
CRediT authorship contribution statement
the RC beams determined by ACI 318 is extra conservative.

Liying Guo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal

analysis, Software, Investigation, Resources, Writing – original draft,

10
L. Guo et al. Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715

Table 8
Details for beams in experimental studies.
Specimen ID RC beam Strengthening material

b×d a/dv fc Stirrups longitudinal reinforcements ft,m t Strengthening form

(mm × mm) (MPa) (MPa) (mm)

CB-2[16] 150 × 300 2 32 / 2 / / /

25
CB-3[16] 150 × 300 3 32 / 2 / / /
25
SB-20-2[16] 150 × 300 2 32 / 2 4.0 20 Both-side
25
SB-20-3[16] 150 × 300 3 32 / 2 4.0 20 Both-side
25
B1[19] 150 × 300 1 25.8 / 2 / / /
20
B1-15[19] 150 × 300 1 25.8 / 2 5.1 15 U-shaped
20
B1-25[19] 150 × 300 1 25.8 / 2 5.1 25 U-shaped
20
B2[19] 150 × 300 2 25.8 / 2 / / /
20
B2-15[19] 150 × 300 2 25.8 / 2 5.1 15 U-shaped
20
B2-25[19] 150 × 300 2 25.8 / 2 5.1 25 U-shaped
20
B2W1[19] 150 × 300 2 21.5 6@220 2 / / /
16/2
25 + 1
18
B2W1-25[19] 150 × 300 2 21.5 6@220 2 5.2 25 U-shaped
16/2
25 + 1
18
B2W2[19] 150 × 300 2 21.5 6@150 2 / / /
16/2
25 + 1
18
B2W2-15[19] 150 × 300 2 21.5 6@150 2 5.2 15 U-shaped
16/2
25 + 1
18
B2W2-25[19] 150 × 300 2 21.5 6@150 2 5.2 25 U-shaped
16/2
25 + 1
18
B2W3[19] 150 × 300 2 21.5 8@100 2 / / /
22/3
25
B2W3-25[19] 150 × 300 2 21.5 8@100 2 5.2 25 U-shaped
16/2
25
CSN[20] 200 × 300 2.8 27.4 10@150 3 / / /
25/3
25
CSF-LL[20] 200 × 300 2.8 27.4 10@150 3 5.2 20 Four-side
25/3
25
CSF-LH[20] 200 × 300 2.8 27.4 10@150 3 4.8 20 Four-side
25/3
25
B-CONT[21] 250 × 350 3.2 30.3 10@300 2 / / /
25/2
25
B-E[21] 250 × 350 3.2 30.3 10@300 2 2.0 30 U-shaped
25/2
25
F0S0[31] 120 × 200 3.1 31.6 6@250 3 / / /
18
EF0S0[31] 120 × 200 3.1 31.6 6@250 3 4.6 15 Both-side
18

11
L. Guo et al.
Writing – review & editing, Project administration. Mingke Deng:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Project
administration, Funding acquisition. Ding Wei: Validation, Software,
Project administration. Zhengtao Qiu: Software, Investigation, Project
administration. Zhifang Dong: Validation, Investigation, Project
administration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgement
This study received financial assistance from the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51578445), Xi’an Science and
Technology Bureau (Grant No. 20191522415KYPT015JC017) and
Department of Education of Henan Province (222102320107), which is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] Tetta ZC, Koutas LN, Bournas DA. Shear strengthening of concrete members with
TRM jackets: Effect of shear span-to-depth ratio, material and amount of external
reinforcement. Compos Part B: Eng 2018;137:184–201.
[2] Mase LZ, Likitlersuang S, Tobita T. Analysis of seismic ground response caused
during strong earthquake in Northern Thailand. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2018;
114:113–26.
[3] Jirawattanasomkula T, Likitlersuangb S, Wuttiwannasakc N, Uedad T, Zhang DW,
Shonof M. Structural behaviour of pre-damaged reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with natural fibre reinforced polymer composites. Compos Struct
2020;244:112309.
[4] Wang S, Wu C, Li VC. Tensile strain-hardening behavior of polyvinyl alcohol
engineered cementitious composite (PVA-ECC). ACI Mater J 2001;98(6):483–92.
[5] Li VC. On engineered cementitious composites (ECC)-a review of the material and
its applications. J Adv Concr Technol 2003;1(3):215–30.
[6] Kanda T, Li VC. Practical Design Criteria for Saturated Pseudo Strain Hardening
Behavior in ECC. J Adv Concr Technol 2006;4(1):59–72.
[7] Li D, Niu DT, Fu Q, Luo DM. Fractal characteristics of pore structure of hybrid
Basalt-Polypropylene fibre-reinforced concrete. Cem Concr Compos 2020;109:
103555.
[8] Kobayashi K, Ahn DL, Rokugo K. Effects of crack properties and water cement ratio
on the chloride proofing performance of cracked SHCC suffering from chloride
attack. Cem Concr Compos 2016;69:18–27.
12
Engineering Structures 267 (2022) 114715
[9] Curosu I, Mechtcherine V, Forni D, Cadoni E. Performance of various strain
hardening cement-based composites (SHCC) subject to uniaxial impact tensile
loading. Cem Concr Res 2017;102:16–28.
[10] Deng MK, Zhang YX. Cyclic loading tests of RC columns strengthened with high
ductile fiber reinforced concrete jacket. Constr Build Mater 2017;153:986–95.
[11] Deng MK, Ma FD, Ye W, Liang XW. Investigation of the shear strength of HDC deep
beams based on a modified direct strut-and-tie model. Constr Build Mater 2018;
172:340–8.
[12] Deng MK, Ma FD, Song SF, Lv H, Sun HZ. Seismic performance of interior precast
concrete beam-column connections with highly ductile fiber-reinforced concrete in
the critical cast-in-place regions. Eng Struct 2020;210:110360.
[13] Deng MK, Zhang YX, Li QQ. Shear strengthening of RC short columns with ECC
jacket: Cyclic behavior tests. Eng Struct 2018;160:535–45.
[14] Zhang YX, Deng MK, Dong ZF. Seismic response and shear mechanism of
engineered cementitious composite (ECC) short columns. Eng Struct 2019;192:
296–304.
[15] Alrefaei Y, Rahal K, Maalej M. Shear strength of beams made using hybrid fiber-
engineered cementitious composites. J Struct Eng 2017;144(1):04017177.
[16] Wang G, Yang CQ, Pan Y, Zhu FW, Jin K, Li KF, et al. Shear behaviors of RC beams
externally strengthened with engineered cementitious composite layers. Mater
2019;12(13):2163.
[17] Wei JY, Wu C, Chen YX, Leung CKY. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete
beams with high strength strain-hardening cementitious composites (HS-SHCC).
Mater Struct 2020;53:102.
[18] Hassan A, Baraghith AT, Atta AM, El-Shafiey TF. Retrofitting of shear-damaged RC
T-beams using U-shaped SHCC jacket. Eng Struct 2021;245:112892.
[19] Li RZ, Deng MK, Zhang YX, Wei D. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete deep
beams with highly ductile fiber-reinforced concrete jacket. J Build Eng 2022;48:
103957.
[20] Kim SW, Park WS, Jang YL, Feo L, Yun HD. Crack damage mitigation and shear
behavior of shear-dominant reinforced concrete beams repaired with strain-
hardening cement-based composite. Compos Part B 2015;79:6–19.
[21] Huang CC, Chen YS. Innovative ECC jacketing for retrofitting shear-deficient RC
members. Constr Build Mater 2016;111:408–18.
[22] Colotti V, Swamy RN. Unified analytical approach for determining shear capacity
of RC beams strengthened with FRP. Eng Struct 2011;33(3):827–42.
[23] Colotti V. Mechanical shear strength model for reinforced concrete beams
strengthened with FRP materials. Constr Build Mater 2016;124:855–65.
[24] Pellegrino C, Modena C. Fibre reinforced polymer shear strengthening of
reinforced concrete beams with transverse steel reinforcement. J Compos Constr
2002;6(2):104–11.
[25] Bousselham A, Chaallal O. Effect of transverse steel and shear span on the
performance of RC beams strengthened in shear with FRP. Compos Part B 2006;37:
37–46.
[26] GB/T228.1-2010, Metallic Materials-Tensile Testing-Part 1:Method of Test at
Room Temperature. Beijing: Standards Press of China; 2012 [in Chinese].
[27] JGJ 101–2015. Specification of Testing Methods for Earthquake Resistance
Building. Beijing, China: Chinese Building Industry Press; 2015 [in Chinese].
[28] Mahin SA, Bertero V. An evaluation of inelastic seismic design spectra. J Struct Eng
1981;107(9):1775–95.
[29] Ouyang LJ, Gao WY, Zhen B, Lu ZD. Seismic retrofit of square reinforced concrete
columns using basalt and carbon fiber-reinforced polymer sheets: A comparative
study. Compos Struct 2017;162:294–307.
[30] American Concrete Institute. ACI Committee 318. Building code for structural
concrete and commentary. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute;
2008.
[31] Guo R, Ren Y, Li MQ, Hu P, Du M, Zhang R. Experimental study on flexural shear
strengthening effect on low-strength RC beams by using FRP grid and ECC. Eng
Struct 2021;227:111434.