Shear Behaviour of Slabs and Beams

Shear Behaviour of Large, Lightly-Reinforced Depth and Aggregate Size
Concrete Beams and One-Way Slabs

159

CHAPTER 5: DEPTH AND AGGREGATE SIZE
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

This Chapter reports on an extensive experimental program in which the size effect in
shear is systematically studied by varying two parameters: the effective depth, d, and the
maximum aggregate size. A series of large, slender beams with an effective depth of
1400mm and four different aggregate sizes are tested, as well as a series of geometrically
similar beams with an effective depth of 280mm. It is found that the shear strength of the
large beams was uniformly less than the small beams, and that the ACI Code can not
accurately, or safely, predict the shear strength of these large members. It is shown that
the major mechanism of shear transfer in large elements without stirrups is aggregate
interlock. Additional studies using acoustic emission techniques are reported, as well as
an analysis of the failure crack roughness. It is shown that AE techniques can accurately
monitor the progression of cracking in reinforced concrete elements, and that the crack
roughness affects the shear strength of reinforced concrete. It is concluded that the ACI
Code must adopt a shear design method that can account for the size effect and effect of
aggregate size. The 2004 CSA code can accurately account for these effects.
5.1 General
As discussed in Chapter 1, shear design methods for reinforced concrete structures should
be simple, rational, general and, above all, safe and accurate. To illustrate the need for
safety and accuracy in shear design methods, consider the design of the thick one-way
transfer slab in the condominium building discussed by Sherwood et. al. (2007) and
shown in Figure 5-1. The slab has been designed using the ACI Code to transfer closely-
spaced wall loads from the twelve upper stories to the more widely-spaced walls in the
podium and parking levels below. The ACI code requires that narrow beams contain at
least minimum shear reinforcement if the factored shear force, V
u
, exceeds 0.5V
c
.
However, this requirement does not apply to slabs, so the code requires stirrups for these
element types only when V
u
exceeds V
c
. The thickness of the slab shown in Figure 5-1
has been chosen so that V
c
exceeds V
u
and hence shear reinforcement is not required.
160

Figure 5-1: Structure Using Thick One-Way Transfer Slab

Figure 5-2: Idealization of Transfer Slab based on Unit Width Test Strips
161
If an error resulted in, for example, the placement of only two-thirds of the required top
flexural reinforcement above Walls W2 and W3, this reinforcement would yield under
the dead weight of the structure, causing wide cracks and excessive deflection. This
structural distress would provide considerable warning that the slab was under-strength.
However, even if this structural distress was not noticed, it is unlikely that the slab would
collapse. Strain hardening, moment redistribution and membrane action in the slab
would all contribute greatly to increasing the load required to cause flexural failure. On
the other hand, if the shear design of the transfer slab is inaccurate, and the shear capacity
is only two-thirds of that which is required, a brittle shear failure could occur with no
prior warning, resulting in the collapse of the structure and possibly great loss of life.
Equation (11-5) of the ACI 318 code, which was used to choose the required thickness of
the transfer slab shown in Figure 5-1, does not account for the size effect in shear.
Because of this, there are concerns that the current ACI shear design provisions are
unconservative for thick slabs such as that shown in Figure 5-1. These concerns can be
investigated by constructing and load-testing 1 foot (300mm) wide beam-strips extracted
from the slab as shown in Figure 5-2. Such elements are simpler to test than wide slabs,
and since the web width, b
w
, has been shown in Chapters 3 and 4 to have no significant
influence on the beam-shear failure stress, they can provide accurate information about
the beam-shear behaviour of slabs.
The purpose of the experiments described in this chapter is to explore the safety and
accuracy of the ACI shear design method when applied to thick slabs by focusing on the
size effect in shear and the role played by the maximum coarse aggregate size in
transferring shear stress across cracks. An experimental program is described, in which a
series of large-scale and geometrically similar small-scale slab-strip specimens were
loaded to shear failure.

162
5.2 Experimental Program
Four separate series of tests were conducted as part of this experimental program. The
test specimens were intended to represent idealized test strips analogous to that shown in
Figure 5-2, and their designs are presented in Figure 5-3 and Figure 5-4. Major
experimental variables studied, concrete material properties, casting dates and testing
dates are summarized in Table 5-1. Concrete mix designs are provided in Appendix E.
The first series of tests was designed to investigate the effect of the maximum aggregate
size on the shear behaviour of large and small beams without stirrups. The series
consisted of nineteen tests in which the effective maximum aggregate size, a
g,eff
, was
varied from 0mm to 51mm (2in.), at two effective depths (280mm and 1400mm). The
second series of tests was designed to investigate the shear behaviour of beams
constructed with high strength concrete and a minimum quantity of stirrups. A third
series of tests was conducted to investigate the shear behaviour of large beams with a
small percentage of longitudinal reinforcement. A fourth series of tests was conducted to
investigate the effects of distributed longitudinal reinforcement on shear strength.
The large specimens measured 1510mm deep x 300mm wide x 9000mm long (59.4in. x
11.8in. x 354in.). The small specimens were geometrically similar to the large specimens,
and measured 330mm deep x 122mm wide x 1800mm long (13in. x 4.9in. x 77.9in.).
Specimens S-20D1 and S-20D2 listed in Table 5-1 had different dimensions than those
shown in Figure 5-4, and are discussed in Chapter 6.
All specimens were cast in the Mark Huggins Structural Laboratory in the Department of
Civil Engineering at the University of Toronto. The formwork for the large specimens is
shown in Figure 5-5. Generally, two large specimens and two small specimens were cast
during each pour, and the concrete was supplied by a local-ready-mix supplier in a single
truck.
163

Figure 5-3: Main Reinforcement Details and Test Setup Large Series
164

Figure 5-4: Main Reinforcement Details and Test Setup Small Series
165
Table 5-1: Specimen Cast Dates, Test Dates and Major Variables Studied
f'
c
(1)
a
g
d
A
v
f
y

w
(MPa) (mm) (mm) b
w
s (%)
Aggregate Size Series (Chapter 5)
High-Strength Concrete
L-10H September 21, 2004 December 13, 2004 83 1 73.6 9.5 1400 0 0.83 - -
S-10H September 21, 2004 May 2, 2005 223 1 77.3 9.5 280 0 0.83 - -
Regular Strength Concrete
Large Specimens
L-10N1 December 11, 2003 March 17 2004 97 2 38.4 9.5 1400 0 0.83 - -
L-10N2 December 11, 2003 April 22, 2004 133 2 40.3 9.5 1400 0 0.83 - -
L-20N1 September 2, 2003 December 12, 2003 101 3 31.4 19 1400 0 0.83 - -
L-20N2 September 2, 2003 February 5, 2004 156 3 33.2 19 1400 0 0.83 - -
L-40N1 February 19, 2004 May 12, 2004 83 4 28.1 38 1400 0 0.83 - -
L-40N2 February 19, 2004 June 1, 2004 103 4 28.5 38 1400 0 0.83 - -
L-50N1 June 21, 2005 July 20, 2005 29 5 41.0 51 1400 0 0.83 - -
L-50N2 August 8, 2005 48
L-50N2-R August 10, 2005 50
Small Specimens
S-10N1 December 11, 2003 April 4, 2005 480 2 41.9 9.5 280 0 0.83 - -
S-10N2 December 11, 2003 April 6, 2005 482 2 41.9 9.5 280 0 0.83 - -
S-20N1 June 24, 2004 October 29, 2004 127 3 39.2 19 280 0 0.83 - -
S-20N2 June 24, 2004 November 4, 2004 133 3 38.1 19 280 0 0.83 - -
S-40N1 February 19, 2004 April 11, 2005 417 4 29.1 38 280 0 0.83 - -
S-40N2 February 19, 2004 April 27, 2005 433 4 29.1 38 280 0 0.83 - -
S-50N1 June 21, 2005 December 7, 2005 169 5 43.5 51 280 0 0.83 - -
S-50N2 June 21, 2005 December 13, 2005 175 5 43.5 51 280 0 0.83 - -
Shear Reinforcement Series Chapter 7)
L-10HS September 21, 2004 January 25, 2005 126 1 71.2 9.5 1400 0.50 1.33 - -
S-10HS September 21, 2004 April 13, 2005 204 1 77.3 9.5 280 0.50 1.34 - -
Longitudinal Reinforcement Series Chapter 7)
L-20L October 18, 2005 96
L-20L-R October 20, 2005 98
Distributed Reinforcement Series Chapter 6)
L-20D November 3, 2005 112
L-20D-R November 4, 2005 113
S-20D1
(2)
July 14, 2005 December 16, 2005 155 3 40.6 19 250 0 0.81 - -
S-20D2 July 14, 2005 December 19, 2005 158 3 40.8 19 250 0 0.83 - -
(1) -Day of Test
(2) -Specimen Design for S-20D1 and D2 presented in Chapter 6
Specimen Naming:
L-, S- -large or small specimen
10,20,40,50 -nominal maximum coarse aggregate size
N,H -normal or high strength concrete
S -minimum stirrups provided
L -low reinforcement ratio (normal strength concrete)
D -distributed steel series (normal strength concrete)
1,2 -specimen 1 or 2 of a series of duplicate specimens
R -repeat test of a failed specimen on opposite side of failure (original failure side clamped)
Age
(Days)
July 14, 2005
Specimen
- -
- -
3 35.8 2-10M@225 0.84 0 1371 19
0 0.83
July 14, 2005 3 35.4 19 1450 0 0.25
June 21, 2005 5 40.1 1400 51
Cast Date Test Date Mix
Dist. Long.
Steel

166

Figure 5-5: Formwork for Large Specimens
5.2.1 Aggregate Size Series
Nine large specimens and nine small specimens were constructed for this test series. The
large specimens were reinforced with five 30M bars in tension at an effective depth of
1400mm (55.1in.) and with two 20M bars in compression. The reinforcement in the
small specimens consisted of four 9.5mm (US No. 3) bars at an effective depth of 280mm
(11in.). Both sets of specimens were cast with lifting hooks at each end consisting of
rebar with 180
o
bends. Stirrups were not provided in either the large or small specimens.
The reinforcement ratio in both the large and small specimens was
w
=0.83%.
As shown in Table 5-1, the N series of specimens were constructed with normal strength
concrete and with four different maximum aggregate sizes (9.5, 19, 38 and 51mm (3/8,
3/4, 1.5 and 2in.)). The aggregate consisted of crushed limestone quarried on Manitoulin
Island in Northern Ontario and shipped to Toronto for this experimental program, and is
among the strongest and densest limestone aggregates commercially available in Ontario.
167
Two duplicate specimens were cast for each aggregate size at normal concrete strengths.
After specimen L-50N2 failed on the east end, this end was clamped together with a
series of external Dywidag bars, and the specimen was reloaded until failure occurred on
the west end (L-50N2-R).
The H-series of specimens were constructed with high-strength concrete employing
locally quarried crushed limestone aggregate with a maximum size of 3/8in. (9.5mm).
The aggregate used in the H-series of specimens was the same as that used for AT-1 and
by Angelakos et. al. (2001), and was known to cleave at high concrete strengths.
Duplicate specimens were not cast.
Aggregate gradations were provided by the supplier and conformed to CSA A23.1
requirements, and the amount of coarse aggregate in the concrete mixes was kept
constant, ranging from 1060-1100kg/m
3
. The parameter M/(
w
Vd) at the section d from
the face of the loading plate had a value of 220. For comparison, the thick transfer slab
shown in Figure 5-1 has a M/(
w
Vd) value of 285 for the critical shear section located d
from the face of the supporting wall. The somewhat lower value for the experimental
series ensured that even the small specimens would fail in shear rather than flexure.
5.2.2 Shear Reinforcement Series
The results of this series are discussed in Chapter 7. Two specimens were constructed for
this test series: a large specimen, L-10HS and a small specimen, S-10HS. The tensile
reinforcement in the large specimen consisted of eight 30M rebars at an effective depth of
1400mm (55.1in.), with two 20M rebars as compression reinforcement. Stirrups
consisting of single legs of No. 3 US rebars spaced at 235mm on alternating sides of the
specimen were provided. The tensile reinforcement in the small specimen consisted of
four 10M rebars and a D9 deformed bar at an effective depth of 280mm. Two D4
deformed bars were provided as compression reinforcement. Stirrups consisting of single
legs of 5mm diameter smooth bars spaced at 160mm on alternating sides of the specimen
were provided.
168
The reinforcement ratios for the large and small specimens were 1.33% and 1.34%,
respectively, and were larger than the reinforcement ratio for the aggregate series to
suppress flexural failure. The spacing of the stirrups resulted in A
v
f
y
/b
w
s values of
0.50MPa for both beams. This is about equal to the ACI minimum stirrups requirement
specified as 0.062(f
c
)
0.5
. These specimens were cast at the same time as L-10H and S-
10H in the aggregate size series using high-strength concrete. The relative sizes of the
large and small specimens is illustrated in Figure 5-6.

Figure 5-6: Photograph of L-10HS and S-10HS Following Shear Failure
5.2.3 Longitudinal Reinforcement Series
This series consisted of a single specimen, L-20L, and the results are discussed in
Chapter 7. It was cast at the same time as specimens L-20D, S-20D1 and S-20D2
described in Chapter 6. After the specimen failed on the west end this end was clamped
with a series of externally applied Dywidag bars, and it was reloaded until failure
occurred on the east end. The tensile reinforcement consisted of two 26mm high-strength
Dywidag post-tensioning bars at an effective depth of 1450mm. The area of each bar was
544mm
2
, resulting in a reinforcement ratio of 0.254%. The yield strength of the Dywidag
bars was 880MPa, and the ultimate strength 1150MPa. Dywidag nuts were threaded on
both ends of each bar to enhance the anchorage. 200mm long D6 spirals were placed
around the nuts and bars at the ends to resist any possible splitting stresses.
169
5.2.4 Experimental Setup
The test setup for the large and small specimens is shown in Figure 5-3, Figure 5-4,
Figure 5-7 and Figure 5-8. The large specimens were loaded to shear failure in three-
point bending under force-control in a Baldwin test frame. The load was applied through
a fixed head and pinned steel loading blocks. The loading blocks were placed in a bed of
plaster-of-paris to avoid stress concentrations on the surface of the concrete. The
specimens spanned 8100mm, and were supported on steel plates and rollers on large steel
supports bearing on the floor of the test frame. Stiff steel lateral braces were bolted to the
steel supports (Figure 5-3b and Figure 5-8b) to prevent the specimens from tipping over
to the north or south. These lateral supports did not touch the specimens during testing.
The shear span to depth ratio (a/d) for the aggregate and stirrup series was 2.89, and it
was 2.79 for specimen L-20L.

Figure 5-7: Photograph of S-Series Test Setup (East Face Shown)
170

Figure 5-8: Photographs of L-Series Test Setup
a) North Face
b) South Face
171
5.2.5 Instrumentation
Test instrumentation is shown in Figure 5-9. Loading was paused at stages to allow
cracks to be marked and measured and photographs taken. A 300mmx300mm grid of
Zurich targets was affixed to the south face of the large specimens, and horizontal,
vertical and diagonal distances between the targets were measured at load stages using an
existing, custom-built data acquisition system. Zurich target grids were not used on the
small-scale specimens.
The north faces of the large specimens were instrumented with six sets of diagonally-
oriented LVDTs to measure shear strains over 1350mmx1350mm areas. The west faces
of the small specimens were instrumented with two sets of diagonally-oriented LVDTs to
measure shear strains. Ten LVDTs were used to measure vertical displacements in the
large specimens at five points along the span. Two LVDTs were used to measure the
midspan displacement of the small specimens. Steel strain gauges were affixed to the
reinforcing bars in both the large and small specimens as shown in Figure 5-9, and were
set to zero prior to loading.

172

Figure 5-9: Instrumentation Setup: L- and S- Series
173
5.3 Experimental Results Aggregate Size Series
5.3.1 General
Key experimental results are summarized in Table 5-2. These results include:
P
exp
-experimental failure load;
V
exp
-experimental failure shear calculated at d from face of loading plate;
-experimental beta factor (=V
exp
/b
w
d(f
c
)
0.5
);
ult
/0.5L -ratio of midspan deflection at failure to one-half of the span length;
ult
-quarterspan shear strain at failure load;
s,max
-midspan longitudinal steel strain at failure load; and
w
max
-maximum measured crack width at last load stage prior to failure.
All specimens failed in shear prior to reaching their flexural capacity. Failure crack
patterns for equivalent large and small specimens are provided in Figure 5-10, where it
can be seen that the failure cracks were classic S-shaped shear cracks indicative of a
breakdown in beam action. While some of the steel strain gauges in the small specimens
measured strains at the failure load in excess of the yield strain, no yield plateau was
observed since the gauges were slightly precompressed due to shrinkage of the concrete.
Note that specimen S-20N1 has been drawn in Figure 5-10 such that the effective depth
of both S-20N1 and L-20N1 are the same length on the page. When the crack patterns
are thus compared, it is interesting to note their basic similarity, but that much wider
cracks were measured in the large beam at lower shear stresses. The angles shown are
those predicted by Equation (2-22) in Chapter 2.
The failures were all quite brittle. See the typical load-deflection curves in Figure 5-11.
The large beams exhibited extremely brittle behaviour, failing at ratios of mid-span
deflection to span of between 1/830 and 1/1250. The small beams exhibited slightly
greater ductility. Failure in both the large and small specimens was sudden and generally
preceded by relatively little cracking. The load deflection curves of the four beams in
Figure 5-11 also indicate that the small specimens failed at considerably higher shear
stresses than the large specimens, and that failure load generally increased for increasing
effective aggregate size (a
g
,
eff
).
174
Table 5-2: Experimental Results -Aggregate Size and Stirrup Series

w
A
v
f
y
f
'
c
(
1
)
a
g
,
e
f
f
s
x
e
(
2
)
P
e
x
p
V
e
x
p
(
3
)
v
e
x
p
(
3
)
u
l
t
/
0
.
5
L
u
l
t
s
,
m
a
x
w
m
a
x
v
A
C
I
v
e
x
p
v
S
M
C
F
T
v
e
x
p
v
S
M
C
F
T
v
e
x
p
(
%
)
b
w
s
(
M
P
a
)
(
m
m
)
(
m
m
)
(
k
N
)
(
k
N
)
(
M
P
a
)
x
1
0
-
3
x
1
0
-
3
(
m
m
)
(
M
P
a
)
v
A
C
I
(
M
P
a
)
v
S
M
C
F
T
(
M
P
a
)
v
S
M
C
F
T
L
-
1
0
N
1
0
.
8
3
0
3
8
.
4
9
.
5
1
7
2
8
4
9
9
2
6
5
0
.
6
3
0
.
1
0
2
.
1
0
.
7
1
2
8
0
0
.
5
5
1
.
0
6
0
.
5
8
0
.
5
8
L
-
1
0
N
2
0
.
8
3
0
4
0
.
3
9
.
5
1
7
2
8
4
5
4
2
4
2
0
.
5
8
0
.
0
9
2
.
0
0
.
5
1
4
0
0
0
.
4
0
1
.
0
8
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
9
L
-
1
0
H
0
.
8
3
0
7
3
.
6
0
2
7
5
6
4
4
9
2
4
0
0
.
5
7
0
.
0
7
1
.
6
0
.
5
1
1
2
0
0
.
5
0
1
.
3
9
0
.
5
7
0
.
5
7
L
-
1
0
H
S
1
.
3
3
0
.
5
0
7
1
.
2
0
3
0
0
1
3
8
8
7
1
0
1
.
6
9
-

-
6
.
7
2
.
6
1
9
1
0
4
.
0
0
1
.
9
1
1
.
7
9
1
.
7
9
L
-
2
0
N
1
0
.
8
3
0
3
1
.
4
1
9
1
2
6
0
4
9
9
2
6
5
0
.
6
3
0
.
1
1
2
.
3
1
.
1
1
2
6
0
1
.
2
0
0
.
9
6
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
2
L
-
2
0
N
2
0
.
8
3
0
3
3
.
2
1
9
1
2
6
0
5
0
0
2
6
6
0
.
6
3
0
.
1
1
2
.
3
0
.
6
1
2
3
0
0
.
5
0
0
.
9
9
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
3
L
-
4
0
N
1
0
.
8
3
0
2
8
.
1
3
8
1
0
7
1
4
5
3
2
4
2
0
.
5
8
0
.
1
0
9
1
.
9
0
.
7
1
1
8
0
0
.
3
0
0
.
9
1
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
3
L
-
4
0
N
2
0
.
8
3
0
2
8
.
5
3
8
1
0
7
1
5
4
5
2
8
8
0
.
6
9
0
.
1
2
8
2
.
4
0
.
6
1
3
4
0
0
.
5
0
0
.
9
2
0
.
6
9
0
.
6
4
L
-
5
0
N
1
0
.
8
3
0
4
1
.
0
5
1
1
0
7
1
5
1
2
2
7
2
0
.
6
5
0
.
1
0
1
2
.
2
0
.
5
1
2
4
0
0
.
5
0
1
.
0
9
0
.
8
3
0
.
7
2
L
-
5
0
N
2
0
.
8
3
0
4
0
.
1
5
1
1
0
7
1
5
6
5
2
9
8
0
.
7
1
0
.
1
1
2
2
.
1
0
.
6
1
1
4
0
0
.
5
0
1
.
0
8
0
.
8
3
0
.
7
1
L
-
5
0
N
2
R
0
.
8
3
0
4
0
.
1
5
1
1
0
7
1
6
1
4
3
2
3
0
.
7
7
0
.
1
2
1
-

-
0
.
8
1
3
6
0
0
.
3
5
1
.
0
8
0
.
8
3
0
.
7
1
S
-
1
0
N
1
0
.
8
3
0
4
1
.
9
9
.
5
3
4
6
7
2
.
7
3
6
.
6
1
.
0
7
0
.
1
7
4
.
3
1
.
5
2
5
6
0
0
.
1
0
1
.
1
0
0
.
9
7
0
.
9
7
S
-
1
0
N
2
0
.
8
3
0
4
1
.
9
9
.
5
3
4
6
7
6
.
1
3
8
.
3
1
.
1
2
0
.
1
7
4
.
8
1
.
7
2
4
0
0
0
.
1
5
1
.
1
0
0
.
9
7
0
.
9
7
S
-
1
0
H
0
.
8
3
0
7
7
.
3
0
5
5
1
7
4
.
9
3
7
.
7
1
.
1
0
0
.
1
3
4
.
0
0
.
7
2
3
4
0
0
.
2
0
1
.
3
9
1
.
0
3
1
.
0
3
S
-
1
0
H
S
1
.
3
4
0
.
5
0
7
7
.
3
0
3
0
0
1
3
2
6
6
.
3
1
.
9
4
-

-
9
.
5
2
.
8
2
8
3
0
2
.
0
0
1
.
9
7
1
.
7
9
1
.
7
9
S
-
2
0
N
1
0
.
8
3
0
3
9
.
2
1
9
2
5
2
7
7
.
7
3
9
.
1
1
.
1
5
0
.
1
8
4
.
3
0
.
5
2
3
9
0
0
.
2
0
1
.
0
7
0
.
9
9
0
.
9
9
S
-
2
0
N
2
0
.
8
3
0
3
8
.
1
1
9
2
5
2
7
5
.
9
3
8
.
2
1
.
1
2
0
.
1
8
4
.
3
1
.
8
2
3
7
0
0
.
2
5
1
.
0
5
0
.
9
8
0
.
9
8
S
-
4
0
N
1
0
.
8
3
0
2
9
.
1
3
8
2
1
4
8
3
.
0
4
1
.
8
1
.
2
2
0
.
2
3
5
.
8
2
.
4
2
8
9
0
0
.
2
5
0
.
9
3
0
.
9
4
0
.
9
2
S
-
4
0
N
2
0
.
8
3
0
2
9
.
1
3
8
2
1
4
6
9
.
3
3
4
.
9
1
.
0
2
0
.
1
9
4
.
8
2
.
3
2
2
7
0
0
.
3
5
0
.
9
3
0
.
9
4
0
.
9
2
S
-
5
0
N
1
0
.
8
3
0
4
3
.
5
5
1
2
1
4
7
6
.
5
3
8
.
5
1
.
1
3
0
.
1
7
5
.
1
1
.
7
2
3
8
0
0
.
1
5
1
.
1
2
1
.
0
9
1
.
0
4
S
-
5
0
N
2
0
.
8
3
0
4
3
.
5
5
1
2
1
4
8
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
1
.
1
9
0
.
1
8
5
.
2
1
.
4
-

-
0
.
1
5
1
.
1
2
1
.
0
9
1
.
0
4

A
v
e
r
a
g
e
:

C
O
V
:
1
.
0
7
9
.
2
%
1
.
3
3
1
.
1
1
1
.
0
8
1
.
1
4
1
.
0
7
1
.
0
8
1
.
1
6
1
.
1
4
1
.
0
0
1
.
0
8
1
.
1
1
1
.
1
6
1
.
0
0
0
.
9
1
1
.
0
8
0
.
9
0
0
.
9
8
1
.
0
0
0
.
9
5
1
.
0
2
1
.
0
2
0
.
9
5
1
.
0
0
0
.
9
8
0
.
7
8
0
.
9
9
0
.
8
3
1
.
0
0
1
.
1
6
1
.
1
1
0
.
9
3
0
.
8
6
1
.
1
4
1
.
1
6
1
.
0
8
1
.
0
7
1
.
0
9
1
.
0
3
1
.
0
8
1
.
3
0
0
.
8
3
2
8
.
5
%
1
.
0
3
1
1
.
7
%
1
.
3
2
1
.
1
0
1
.
0
1
1
.
0
6
0
.
8
0
0
.
9
9
1
.
0
7
1
.
0
6
0
.
6
6
0
.
7
1
0
.
9
8
1
.
0
2
0
.
6
4
0
.
6
3
0
.
7
5
0
.
5
9
0
.
5
3
0
.
4
1
0
.
8
8
0
.
6
6
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n

P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
0
.
6
0
1
.
0
9
1
.
0
9
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l

O
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
C
I

M
e
t
h
o
d
S
M
C
F
T

M
e
t
h
o
d

(
n
o

l
i
m
i
t

o
n

s
x
e
)
S
M
C
F
T

M
e
t
h
o
d

(
s
x
e

0
.
8
5
s
x
)
N
o
t
e
s
:
(
1
)

d
a
y

o
f

t
e
s
t
(
2
)

I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s

0
.
8
5
s
x

l
i
m
i
t
(
3
)

C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d

a
t

d

f
r
o
m

f
a
c
e

o
f

l
o
a
d
i
n
g

p
l
a
t
e
,

i
n
c
l
.

s
e
l
f
-
w
e
i
g
h
t

(
v
e
x
p

=

V
e
x
p
/
b
w
d
)
=
v
e
x
p
/
f
'
c

175

Figure 5-10: Failure Crack Patterns in Small and Large Specimens without Stirrups
176
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
/(L/2) (x10
-3
)
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s
,

v
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
S-50N2
S-10N2
L-50N2
ACI: v = 157psi
(MPa) (psi)
L-10N2
a)
Avg. f'
c
= 40.6MPa
(5890psi)
V
b
w
d
=
L
500

Figure 5-11: Typical Load Deflection Curves of Large and Small Specimens
(Load Stages Removed for Clarity)
The inability of the ACI expression to accurately predict the shear strength of thick
beams and slabs without stirrups is apparent. Because the concrete strengths of the four
beams in Figure 5-11 were about the same, Equation (11-5) of the ACI code predicts
about the same failure shear stress for each of them. It is also important to note that
scaling the aggregate size up by five times did not compensate for scaling the beam
dimensions by five times. These general observations will be discussed in more detail in
the following sections.
5.3.2 The Effect of Depth
The failure shear stresses of the aggregate size series of specimens are plotted in Figure
5-12 versus the effective depth. That the failure shear stress decreases as the effective
177
depth increases is clear. On average, the large specimens failed at 57% of the failure
shear stresses of the small specimens. Interestingly, the high-strength concrete specimens
(S-10H and L-10H) did not exhibit the highest failure shear stresses. Indeed, beam action
broke down in L-10H at the lowest shear stress of the large specimens, while S-10H
failed at about the average shear stress of the small specimens.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Effective Depth, d (mm)
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
M
P
a
)
V
b
w
d Average =1.12 MPa
Average =0.64MPa
High Strength
Concrete

Figure 5-12: Effect of Depth on Failure Shear Stress
The experimental parameters w
max
,
ult
,
ult
/0.5L and steel strain from Table 5-2 are
plotted in Figure 5-13 and Figure 5-14 versus the effective depth and effective aggregate
size. It is clearly shown that both the large and the small specimens exhibited very brittle
behaviour, though the large specimens were more brittle than the small specimens.
The relative displacements at failure in the large specimens were less than half of those in
the small specimens. The small specimens failed at an average deflection of 1/425
th
of
178
the span, while the large specimens failed at an average deflection of only 1/950
th
of the
span. Furthermore, the shear strain at failure in the large specimens was on average
about 42% of that in the small specimens. Lastly, reflecting the lower failure shears, the
peak measured longitudinal steel strain at midspan in the large specimens was on average
51% of that in the small specimens. Based on the small deformations measured in the
large specimens, it is unlikely that a large transfer slab such as that shown in Figure 5-1
would be able to transfer significant load by alternate methods prior to a shear failure.
Despite the more brittle behaviour exhibited by the large specimens, these specimens
exhibited considerably wider cracks at lower shear stresses than the small specimens.
Compare, for example, the crack patterns in Figure 5-10, in which it can be seen that the
three widest cracks in L-20N1 measured 1.0mm, 0.6mm and 0.4mm at a shear stress of
0.63MPa, while the three widest cracks in S-20N1 were 0.1mm wide at a shear stress of
1.11MPa. On average, the cracks in the large specimens were 2.9 times the crack widths
in the equivalent small specimens prior to failure (see Figure 5-13). Since, as discussed
in Chapter 2, it has been amply shown that the ability of a crack to transfer shear reduces
as its width increases, it seems reasonable to conclude that the wider cracks measured in
the larger specimens at lower shear stresses explain the reduced shear strength of these
specimens. This conclusion will be discussed in more detail in Section 5.5.

Figure 5-13: Effect of Depth and Aggregate Size on Maximum Crack Width at Load
Stage Prior to Failure (w
max
)
179

Figure 5-14: Effect of Depth and Aggregate Size on Deformations
180
5.3.3 ACI Code Predictions of Shear Strength
The most significant effect of the 5x increase in depth from 280mm to 1400mm is the
resulting poor predictions of the failure loads generated by the ACI code. The ratios of
the experimental failure shears to the 2005 ACI and 2004 CSA predicted failure shears
for the large specimens are plotted in Figure 5-15. In this figure it can be seen that the
ACI code is extremely unconservative when predicting the shear strength of the large
specimens, while the CSA code accurately predicts their strengths.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Effective Maximum Aggregate Size, a
g,eff
(mm)
R
a
t
i
o

V
e
x
p
/
V
p
r
e
d
ACI Eq. 11-5
CSA 2004
CSA 2004
without 0.85s
z
cutoff
LL=DL:

( )
0.536 =
1.6 + 1.2
2
1
0.75

Figure 5-15: Ability of CSA and ACI Codes to Predict Shear Failure in Large Specimens
Failure shear stresses predicted by Equation (11-5) of ACI 318 and the simplified MCFT
are summarized in Table 5-2, and are compared to the experimentally determined shear
strengths. Since both the ACI basic expression for V
c
, Equation (11-5), and the
simplified MCFT predict that the coexisting moment decreases sectional shear capacity,
these experimental and predicted shear stresses have been calculated at the critical section
d=1400mm
181
located d from the loading point. Traditionally, shear strengths calculated using Equation
(11-3) of the ACI code have been calculated at d from the face of the loading plate to take
into account the self-weight of the member. While calculating the failure shear at d from
the loading point, the shear due to self-weight is slightly reduced, though the more
dominant effect of the moment is accounted for.
The ACI method predicts that the shear stress at failure for both the large and small
members constructed without stirrups should range from 133 to 202 psi (0.91 to 1.39
MPa). For the small specimens, the experimentally determined failure shear stresses
range from 148 to 177 psi (1.02 to 1.22 MPa), which generally agrees with the predicted
range. The experimentally determined failure shears of the large specimens without
stirrups, however, range from only 83 to 112 psi (0.57 to 0.77 MPa). In assessing the
consequences of these low failure shear stresses, it is important to realize that the thick
slab shown in Figure 5-1, which was designed to satisfy the ACI 318-05 shear provisions,
will have a shear stress under unfactored service loads of 82 psi (0.57 MPa).
Furthermore, the brittle failures exhibited by the large test specimens in this experimental
series indicate that the thick slab shown in Figure 5-1 would likely give little warning that
it was at risk of imminent shear failure.
The ACI method produces generally accurate predictions of the failure shears of the
small beams. This is to be expected, as the height of these beams was similar to the
average height of the beams tested to empirically derive the ACI basic expression for V
c
.
However, the ACI expression is somewhat unconservative for shallow high-strength
concrete slabs constructed without stirrups (based on specimen S-10H).
5.3.4 The Effect of Aggregate Size
It is apparent in Figure 5-15 that the ACI code generally becomes more unconservative as
the aggregate size decreases. The CSA code, on the other hand, offers a more consistent
level of safety across all of the aggregate sizes tested. Assuming a dead load equal to the
live load, specimens L-10N2 and L-10H failed at or below the ACI maximum service
182
load, while the other large specimens failed above the service load. It has been
demonstrated, therefore, that in this specific case it is possible to reduce the safety factor
of a member to less than one, based on the ACI code, by substituting a concrete mix with
a maximum aggregate size of 3/4in. (19mm) (a typical mix for an element such as this in
service) with a concrete mix with 3/8in. aggregate (3/8in.). As shown in Figure 5-16, the
experimentally determined factor varied considerably as the effective aggregate size
was varied. It is because the factor in the CSA code is a function of the aggregate size
that it is capable of the accuracy demonstrated in Figure 5-15.

Figure 5-16: Change in due to Changes in the Maximum Aggregate Size
Referring to Figure 5-14, it can be seen that the maximum aggregate size had some effect
on the deformations at failure. The shear strains at the failure loads generally increased
in the small specimens as the effective aggregate size increased, as did the /0.5L ratios.
The /0.5L ratios in the large specimens exhibited increases with increasing effective
aggregate size, though the increases are unreliable at a
g,eff
=38 and 51mm.
It is not immediately clear in Figure 5-14 the effect that the effective aggregate size had
on shear strains in the large specimens at the peak load. In Figure 5-17a), however, the
183
shear strains on both sides of the specimens at the failure loads are plotted, and it can be
seen that there was a general trend of increasing shear strain associated with increased
maximum aggregate size (dashed line).
In Figure 5-17b), the shear strains on both sides of both the large and small specimens are
plotted at constant shear stresses. Only shear strains in specimens with similar concrete
strengths have been plotted. In the large specimens, there was essentially no difference in
the average shear strains at a shear stress of 0.56MPa (corresponding to an applied load
of 440kN). In the small specimens, there was a considerably larger range in the strains at
a shear stress of 1.04MPa. However, with the exception of the very large strain in one
9.5mm aggregate specimen, the measured strains in the 51mm aggregate specimens on
average were slightly larger than those in the 9.5 and 19.1mm aggregate specimens.

Figure 5-17: Effect of a
g,eff
on Shear Deformations at a) Failure Load in Large Specimens
and b) Constant Shear Stresses
184
5.3.5 CSA Predictions of Shear Strength
In order to calculate the v
smcft
values listed in Table 5-2, Equations (2-17), (2-18) and (2-
19) in Chapter 2 must be solved simultaneously. This can be accomplished either by
solving a quadratic equation or using an iterative approach. The iterative approach
consists of 1) guessing a value for
x
, 2) calculating from Eq. (2-18), 3) calculating V
from Eq. (2-17) 4) determining the resulting moment, M, based on the M/V ratio at the
section, and 5) calculating a new value for
x
from Eq (2-19) and returning to step 2).
When the new value of
x
equals the guessed value, convergence has been achieved. For
example, for specimen L-10N1 which is loaded by a point load and has a self-weight of
10.6 kN/m, we can guess
x
=0.5x10
-3
, which results in =0.1089, V=255.3 kN, M=713.6
kN-m at d from the point load and a new
x
value of 0.587x10
-3
. Recalculating based on
a guessed value of 0.587x10
-3
results in
x
=0.548x10
-3
. Eventually, convergence will be
achieved at
x
=0.559x10
-3
, in which case =0.1037, V=242.8kN and v
smcft
=V/b
w
d
=0.58MPa. Convergence can be achieved more quickly by averaging the new and
guessed values of
x
. This iterative process can be accomplished by hand or in a single
line of a spreadsheet. It is important to note that for design no iteration is required to
determine shear strength, as
x
can be calculated directly from the design loads.
Figure 5-11 demonstrates that when the maximum aggregate size was increased from 9.5
to 51 mm in the large specimens at a constant concrete strength, the shear capacity
increased by 24%. The effect of maximum aggregate size can also be seen in Figure 5-18
and Figure 5-19, in which the simplified MCFT prediction of the variation of failure
shear stress with aggregate size is shown. These predictions were made using the
average concrete strength for each test series (39.5MPa for the large specimens and
42.6MPa for the small specimens). The experimental points are also presented in the
figures. The averages of duplicate specimens are shown, along with the experimental
range at each aggregate size. Because the concrete strengths varied between specimens,
the experimental points shown on the figures are plotted such that the ratio of v
exp
/v
pred
in
185
the figures is equal to the ratio of v
exp
/v
pred
for the actual concrete strengths listed in Table
5-2. Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-19 demonstrate that shear strength increases as aggregate
size increases. Beyond an aggregate size of 25 mm (1 in.), however, the increase appears
unreliable. It can also be seen that the aggregate size has a larger effect for deeper
members. These results are consistent with the assumption that failure is precipitated due
to loss of aggregate interlock, and that larger coarse aggregate will increase the aggregate
interlock capacity by producing rougher crack surfaces.
In general, the simplified MCFT accurately predicted the shear strength of the specimens.
The average ratio of experimental shear strength to predicted shear strength (v
exp
/v
smcft
)
for the simplified MCFT is 1.03, with a coefficient of variation of 11.7%. However,
there was a larger amount of scatter in the experimental failure shears of the specimens
constructed with 38 and 51mm aggregate compared to those of the 9.5mm and 19mm
aggregates. Furthermore, the simplified MCFT overestimated the shear strength of a
number of these specimens. Thus, based on these test results, it is recommended that a
lower limit be placed on the equivalent crack spacing parameter, s
xe
, and this limit has
been implemented in the 2004 CSA code based on this work. The suggested revised
expression for s
xe
is the following:

x
eff , g
x
xe
s 85 . 0
a 16
s 35
s
+
=
(5-1)
Including the 0.85s
x
limit, the simplified MCFT has an average ratio of v
exp
/v
smcft
of 1.07
with a coefficient of variation of just 9.2%. Applying the 0.85s
x
limit on s
xe
has very
little impact on the overall predictive capabilities of the simplified MCFT, as this limit
has been designed simply to better account for the effect of very large coarse aggregate.
Comparison with the ACI predictions indicates that the ACI method has a lower
experimental/predicted ratio for the small beams than the SMCFT. Note, however, that
the SMCFT is consistently conservative for the small beams over the entire range of
aggregate sizes, resulting in a lower coefficient of variation. The increased scatter
186
evident in the ACI predictions of the small beam shear strengths is indicative of
neglecting the aggregate effect.
It is important to note that the large specimen with the highest concrete strength (L-10H)
had the lowest failure load of all the large beams tested. Inspection of the failure crack
surface indicated that nearly all of the aggregate had fractured, resulting in a crack
surface that was considerably smoother than the surface of failure cracks in beams
constructed with normal-strength concrete. The lower shear strength was most likely
caused by the reduced aggregate interlock caused by aggregate fracturing. The failure
surfaces of the 51mm aggregate specimens also exhibited some aggregate fracturing, and
this will be discussed in section 5.6.3.
The ACI code predicted failure shears are indicated in Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-19 for
the average f
c
of the specimens shown in the figures. The unconservative nature of the
ACI shear provisions when calculating the shear strength of thick slabs without stirrups is
evident.

187
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
-0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SMCFT Prediction
g,eff
(psi)
(MPa)
ACI: v = 155psi (1.07MPa)
(mm)
(in.)
a) Thick Slabs
SMCFT Prediction
with 0.85s
x
limit
V
b
w
d

Figure 5-18: Effect of Aggregate Size on the Shear Strength of Thick Slabs and Beams

188
0
40
80
120
160
200
-0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4
F
a
i
l
u
r
e

S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
SMCFT
Prediction
ACI
g,eff
(MPa)
(mm)
(in.)
b) Shallow Slabs
SMCFT Prediction
with 0.85s
x
limit
(psi)
V
b
w
d

Figure 5-19: Effect of Aggregate Size on the Shear Strength of Shallow Slabs and Beams
189
5.3.6 High-Speed Photos of Failure
The progression of failure in a large beam without stirrups is illustrated in Figure 5-20.
These photos are of the south face of the shear critical region on the east side of
Specimen L-40N1, and were taken with a high-speed digital camera taking approximately
three frames per second. The cracks have been digitally enhanced for clarity.
In Figure 5-20a, the progression of cracks at 98% of the peak load is shown, and it can be
clearly seen that a dominant flexural-shear crack has formed. On the north side of the
specimen, this crack has been instrumented with LVDTs such that the width and slip of
the crack can be measured. At the load in Figure 5-20a, the crack width was 0.17mm.
Note that the average longitudinal spacing of the cracks increases from 150mm (6) at the
level of the steel to 900mm (36) at the beam mid-depth.
As the load is increased to the peak load, the dominant flexural shear crack extends
slightly (Figure 5-20b) and the crack width increases considerably, to 0.71mm. At this
peak load, the shear is being transferred to the support through a combination of shear in
the compression zone, aggregate interlock stresses and dowel forces. It is suggested that
failure is initiated at this load through a breakdown in aggregate interlock shear stresses
on the now very wide dominant flexural-shear crack, as suggested by Moe (1962). The
consequences of the loss of aggregate-interlock are demonstrated in the following figures.
After the peak load has been reached, a flat inclined crack extends towards the loading
point and the flexure-shear crack at the beam midheight continues to widen, with the
mid-span deflection rapidly increasing. This increasing displacement is not accompanied
by increasing longitudinal steel strains. Rather, it is caused by increasing shear strains
caused by the widening crack. After the crack extends towards the load point, it starts to
extend back towards the support point (Figure 5-20e) along the level of the steel. At final
failure (Figure 5-20f), the failure crack is very wide.
There was no evidence of crushing of the compression zone concrete at the peak load in
either the large or small-scale beams. Concrete directly beside the loading point in the
190
large specimens often showed evidence of damage, but this damage appeared generally to
be a result of kinking in the top compression reinforcement after considerable post-peak
deflection. The horizontal cracks at the level of the steel were a result of dowel forces in
the longitudinal steel, and did not appear to be caused by bond stresses. They were
indicative of the bottom cover being ripped from the rest of the beam by a rapid
downwards movement of the longitudinal steel. This horizontal cracking at the level of
the tensile steel was generally a post-peak phenomena, and was not observed to be an
initiator of failure in the specimens tested.
Figure 5-21 shows the progression of failure in a small specimen (S-20N1). In Figure
5-21a), the crack pattern on the south-east face of the specimen at the peak load is shown.
While the left-most crack in the photograph was not instrumented with an LVDT to
measure its width, the crack was observed to widen from when it was measured at a load
of 75kN to the peak load of 77.7kN based on analysis of the series of photos taken by the
digital camera. This peak load was held essentially constant for 12 seconds, with no
visible extensions of the crack. From 12 to 14 seconds after the peak load, the two left-
most cracks extended towards the loading point at a flat angle, and the left-most crack
extended back towards the support. Like the failures in the large specimens, there was
generally no evidence of crushing in the compression zone at the peak load. Horizontal
cracking at the level of the longitudinal steel was observed to be a post-peak phenomenon,
and was indicative of the bottom cover being ripped from the bottom of the beam.
The basic similarity in the shear failures in the large and small specimens is evident when
comparing Figure 5-20 and Figure 5-21. Failure generally appeared to be initiated by
widening of a critical shear crack, with a flat inclined crack driven towards the loading
point following a sudden drop in applied load.
191

Figure 5-20: Progression of Shear Failure in Specimen L-40N1
192

Figure 5-21: Progression of Shear Failure in Specimen S-20N1
193
5.4 Shear Carried in the Compression Zone
5.4.1 General
As discussed in Chapter 2, early models of the shear behaviour of reinforced concrete
beams without shear reinforcement tended not to consider the role played by aggregate
interlock. It was generally believed that cracked concrete in the web of a beam could not
transfer significant shear, and that the majority of shear was thus carried in the uncracked
compression zone above the cracked concrete. Studies by Fenwick and Paulay (1968)
and Taylor (1970) and later studies by Kani conducted in the late 1960s and published in
1979 (Kani et. al. (1979)) showed, in fact, that significant shear stresses were transferred
by aggregate interlock. Nevertheless, these findings have been neglected or otherwise
not considered in some recent models of the shear behaviour of reinforced concrete
In these models, it is explicitly or implicitly assumed that the entire shear is carried in the
uncracked compression zone. These models are thus based on assumptions about the
shear behaviour of reinforced concrete that are considerably different than the
assumptions underlying the application of the MCFT to reinforced concrete beams and
slabs without stirrups, and by extension the 2004 CSA code. It was therefore decided to
instrument the uncracked compression zone at the head of dominant shear cracks in a
number of the specimens tested in this study with concrete strain gauges to measure the
shear carried in the compression zone.
5.4.2 Specimen L-10N2
Figure 5-22 describes the strain gauge pattern used in one of the large specimens without
stirrups to determine the shear force transmitted by the uncracked compression zone.
When the applied load on this specimen, L-10N2, reached 420kN, which was 93% of the
final failure load, a dominant flexural-shear crack had formed, as shown in Figure 5-22.
Half of the vertical applied load was carried to the support by three main components
vertical shear in the compression zone, V
cz
, the vertical component of aggregate interlock
194
shear stresses integrated over the area of the crack, V
agg
, and dowel action in the
longitudinal reinforcement, V
d
. While some vertical shear would be carried across the
crack by residual tension across the crack, particularly near the tip of the crack where the
crack was very narrow, this is not a major component of the total shear force.
The applied load was reduced to zero after a load of 420kN was applied, and the two
columns of horizontal 30mm strain gauges shown were applied at the head of the crack,
spaced horizontally at 80mm. The load was then reapplied and the resulting longitudinal
strains recorded. The longitudinal concrete strains were converted to longitudinal
concrete stresses by multiplying them by the Youngs modulus determined from
companion compressive cylinder tests following similar load histories. The resulting
flexural compressive stress profiles at the two adjacent sections at the head of the
dominant flexural-shear crack are shown in Figure 5-22. The shear stress distribution in
the uncracked compression zone can then be found from the two longitudinal stress
profiles from considerations of horizontal equilibrium using the classic approach
developed by Jourawski (1856) (i.e. v=VQ/Ib). Integrating the resulting shear stress
distribution, we find that the uncracked compression zone carries 50kN of shear force,
which is just 24% of the total shear applied by the load. As dowel action, V
d
, has been
found to account for generally 15-25% of the total shear force at a section (see Chapter 2),
it can be concluded that the majority of the vertical shear in L-10N1 was carried by
aggregate interlock shear stresses in the web of the beam.
It is of some interest to note that, for this lightly-reinforced section, the classical shear
stress distribution of Mrsch (Figure 5-23), in which it is predicted that the shear stress
distribution above the neutral axis is parabolic, with a constant shear stress below the
neutral axis equal to v=V/b
w
jd, would predict that 21% of the shear is carried by the
uncracked compression zone. From this comparison it would seem that the classical
shear stress distribution of Mrsch remains quite accurate even as the shear force
approaches failure.

195

Figure 5-22: Measurement of Shear Carried in Compression Zone of L-10N2

Figure 5-23: Calculation of Shear Carried in Compression Zone of L-10N2 According to
Classic Theory of Mrsch
196
5.4.3 Small Specimens
Series of strain gauges were also applied to the small specimens in an attempt to calculate
the shear force in the uncracked compression zones. In these specimens, the columns of
strain gauges were affixed prior to loading of the specimens. The gauges were 30mm
long, and as shown in Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25, they were placed in two vertical
columns spaced horizontally at 50mm.
It was a considerable challenge to accurately measure the longitudinal concrete surface
strains. As the centre-to-centre horizontal spacing between columns of gauges was only
50mm, the differences in strains between the two columns were very small. While the
gauge manufacturers surface preparation requirements were strictly followed, it was
noted that small irregularities in the concrete surface occasionally resulted in slight
inaccuracies in the strain measurements. These inaccuracies included measuring lower
strains in gauges that were closer to the load than equivalent gauges located further from
the load. Since only three gauges were used in a column, slight inaccuracies in readings
from even one gauge had a very significant effect in the resulting longitudinal stress
profile and calculated shear stress profile. Often negative shear stresses or shear forces in
excess of the applied shear force were calculated. This technique for measuring shear
stress is difficult for test specimens of a traditional size such as these, indicating the
advantages of testing and instrumenting large specimens such as L-10N2.
Two successful measurements of flexural stresses in the compression zone of the small
specimens are summarized in Figure 5-24 and Figure 5-25. Like the measurements in L-
10N2, a parabolic shear stress distribution was calculated, with the peak shear stress at, or
near, the measured neutral axis location. As summarized in the figures, the vertical shear
in the compression zone accounted for only a small proportion of the total shear at both
sections. It thus appears that aggregate interlock was the dominant mechanism of shear
transfer in the small specimens, as well as the large specimens.
197

Figure 5-24: Measurement of Shear Carried in Compression Zone of S-40N1

Figure 5-25: Measurement of Shear Carried in Compression Zone of S-10N1
198
5.4.4 Is Shear Failure Caused by Crushing in the Compression Zone?
As discussed in Chapter 2, Bazant and Yu (2006a,b) study the size effect in shear in some
detail, and offer an explanation based on a mechanism of shear failure caused by crushing
in the compression zone. Furthermore, they do not consider aggregate interlock to be a
dominant mechanism of shear transfer.
Crushing of concrete in the compression zone has been observed by other researchers to
be a mechanism of shear failure in deep beams (with a/d values of less than 2.5).
However, the shear failures observed in the slender (a/d=2.89) test specimens described
in this chapter have not been observed to be caused by crushing in the compression zone.
The compression zones near the loading points have often shown evidence of damage,
but this damage was observed to be a post-peak phenomenon resulting from considerable
post-peak deflections.
Figure 5-26 shows the layout of strain gauges in specimen S-50N2 used to measure the
stress in the concrete near the loading plate. The gauges were 60mm long, and were
placed on the surface prior to loading of the beam. Also shown are measured strains at
various points indicated on the load-deflection curve, as well as photos with digitally-
enhanced cracks. Also shown is the concrete stress-strain curve. It can be seen in this
figure that a large crack on the north side extended towards the loading point as the load
increased, and at the peak load the crack was very close to the strain gauges. However,
strains of less than a half of the crushing strains were measured. The formation of this
crack and the final failure crack considerably disrupted the strain profile on the north face,
but at no time were the measured strains equal to the crushing strains.
Figure 5-27 shows concrete flexural stresses near the peak load in S-40N2. The surface
gauges used were 30mm long. Also shown is the measured shear stress distribution
based on measurements at lines 1 and 2. It is interesting to note that as the final failure
crack extended after the peak load was reached, the proportion of the total shear
measured in the compression zone increased. It is also interesting to note that secondary
199

Figure 5-26: Measured Concrete Surface Strains S-50N2
200

Figure 5-27: Measured Surface Strains North End of S-40N2
P
e
a
k

L
o
a
d

201
strut action was evident following the peak load. That is, after point C (P=68.6kN), the
strut above the failure crack experienced negative bending, with the top in tension and the
bottom in compression. As the loading progressed from d) to e), a tensile crack formed
in the top of the strut, and almost no tension was measured in the concrete directly beside
it. Directly above the failure crack, however, (the bottom two gauges in both Lines 1 and
2), very high compressive stresses, approaching the crushing stress, were measured. The
stress directly beside the load in gauge B also approached the crushing stress. In this
member, it can be seen that stresses approaching the crushing stress were only measured
after considerable post-peak deflection.
The majority of the large and small specimens exhibited failures of secondary strut action
similar to that exhibited by S-40N2, with a tensile failure in the top of the strut following
the peak load. Note that the stresses shown in Figure 5-27 were calculated by directly
converting measured strains to stresses based on the cylinder response following a similar
load-history. That is, a constant E was not assumed.
5.4.5 Analysis of a Concrete Tooth
Since it has been shown that aggregate interlock is a dominant method of shear transfer in
the elements described in this chapter, it seems reasonable to suggest a mechanism of
shear failure based on this shear transfer method. Observation of the failures of the
specimens in this chapter indicated that Moe (1962) (Figure 2-13) offers a simplified,
logical explanation of the shear failure mechanism.
The photographs of the shear failure in Figure 5-20 show that a series of so-called
concrete teeth formed as the test progressed, and similar formation of concrete teeth
were observed in all of the specimens. The crack pattern at the peak load in Figure 5-20
is reproduced in Figure 5-28, with the eastern-most tooth highlighted. Since the steel
stress is higher at the left face of the tooth than it is at the right face, the tooth is loaded
by a force, T, at the level of the tension steel, where T is equal to the difference in
steel forces. The tooth is thus analogous to a vertical cantilever anchored in the
202
uncracked compression zone subjected to a horizontal point load at its tip. This T force
of 170kN was calculated assuming a constant variation in steel stress from a peak at the
maximum moment location to zero at the support. This point load causes a clock-wise
moment about the root of the concrete tooth, and Kani (1964) suggests that the entire
moment caused by T would be resisted by a counter-clockwise moment resulting from
vertical flexural stresses at the root of the tooth. If this were the case, the required
compressive stress, f
c
, and tensile stress, f
t
, based on the assumed distribution, would be
7.3MPa. While this is well below the compressive strength of the concrete, it
considerably exceeds the tensile strength. Had all of the moment due to T been resisted
by bending at the root of the tooth, the cantilever would have failed at a load considerably
less than the actual peak load of 453kN.
Moe (1962) suggested that the moment caused by T is resisted by the counter-clockwise
couple caused by aggregate interlock stresses on the vertical faces of the tooth (v
agg
). If
the shear stress predicted by Mrsch is acting on the crack faces, then the counter-
clockwise couple caused by the aggregate interlock shear stresses is 78% of that of the
moment due to T. This requires that 22% of the moment due to T be resisted by
flexural stresses at the base of the tooth, resulting in f
c
and f
t
values of 1.6MPa. This
proportion is similar to the 20% suggested by Fenwick and Paulay (1968), and is half of
the 40% measured by Kani et. al. (1979). The principal tensile stress at the base of the
tooth is 2.6MPa, based on v=0.6MPa, which is equal to 0.48f
c
. The concrete tensile
strength at the root of the tooth has likely been reached, and the resulting failure exhibited
in Figure 5-20 represents a flexural failure of the concrete at the base on the cantilever.
It is suggested that shear failures in elements such as that shown in Figure 5-28 is a result
of increasing crack width with reduced aggregate interlock capacity. When the capacity
of the cracks to transmit shear stresses is reached, additional demand is placed upon
bending at the root of the cantilever. This additional demand results in increased flexural
tensile stresses, and eventual failure of the root of the cantilever. Any action that serves
to enhance the aggregate interlock capacity of the cracks will allow higher loads to be
203
reached before failure of the cantilever occurs. One such action is the use of larger
aggregate in the concrete mix, resulting in rougher cracks with enhanced aggregate
interlock capacity.

Figure 5-28: Analysis of Concrete Tooth in Specimen L-40N1
204
5.5 The Size Effect
5.5.1 Crack Spacing and Widths
It is interesting to note in Figure 5-10 that the crack patterns in the equivalent large and
small beams appear reasonably similar. At the failure loads, the crack longitudinal
spacing at midheight was about 120mm in S-20N1 and 700mm in L-20N1, a ratio of
5.8/1. At failure, the crack spacing at the centroid of the tension steel in L-20N1 was
about twice that of the spacing in S-20N1 (160mm versus 85mm). The crack
longitudinal spacing in the small beam thus increased by only 1.4 times from the level of
the steel to midheight, while the crack spacing increased by 4.4 times in the large beam.
Of course, the steel stress was much higher in S-20N1 at failure than in L-20N1, resulting
in more closely spaced cracks at the level of the steel. The average crack longitudinal
spacing at 0.5d, 0.75d and at d from the top of specimens L-20N1 and S-20N1 are plotted
in Figure 5-29 versus the shear stress. Note that identical shear stresses in the large and
small specimens correspond to identical steel stresses. In this figure it can be seen that at
a shear stresses of about v=0.45MPa to v=0.63MPa, there was very little difference in the
crack spacing at the level of the steel between the large and small specimens. It is also
interesting to note that in the small specimen there was very little difference in the crack
spacings at different depths of the beam at these shear stresses. The similarity in the
crack spacings at different depths of the small specimen can also be seen in Figure 5-30,
while the considerable increase in crack spacings in the large specimen can also be seen.
The increase in the longitudinal spacing in the large beam is reflective of the reduced
ability of the steel to control crack spacing at midheight. The spacing data in Figure 5-29
is replotted in Figure 5-31. In this figure, the ratios of the crack spacing at 0.5d and 0.75d
from the top of the specimen to the spacing at d from the top of the specimen are plotted.
This figure clearly shows the effect of the reduced crack control characteristics of the
large specimen. The cracks at 0.75 and 0.5d in S-20N1 are slightly more widely spaced
than they are at the level of the steel, while in L-20N1, the increase is dramatic.
205

Figure 5-29: Crack Longitudinal Spacing in L-20N1 and S-20N1

Figure 5-30: Crack Longitudinal Spacing in L-20N1 and S-20N1 (Fraction of d)
206

Figure 5-31: Crack Longitudinal Spacing in L-20N1 and S-20N1 (Relative to Spacing at
level of Reinforcement)
In Figure 5-29, it is interesting to note that the longitudinal spacing of cracks was similar
to three times the clear cover to the side face in both the large and small beams. This is
an approximate spacing suggested by Collins and Mitchell (1991) for axial elements.
The average longitudinal spacing of all the cracks at mid-depth for all of the large and
small specimens at failure is plotted in Figure 5-32. While there is variation in the
average crack spacings between specimens at a particular effective depth, this variation is
similar for both d=280 and 1400mm. On average the crack spacings as a fraction of d are
almost identical in the large and small specimens. This observation is similar to that
made by Shioya (1989), who found that the crack spacings at mid-height of their
specimens were about 0.5d over the entire range of depths. In other words, in these size
effect specimens in which the effective depth was scaled by five times, the horizontal
crack spacing at mid-depth scaled by five times.
207
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Effective Depth, d (mm)
A
v
e
r
a
g
e

C
r
a
c
k

S
p
a
c
i
n
g

a
t

d
/
2

(
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
)
Crack Spacing Parameter, s
z
Shioya
Tests
Average=0.45d Average=0.44d

Figure 5-32: Average Crack Spacing (S
c
) at Mid-Depth of Specimen
Based on the observation that the cracks were spaced about 5 times wider in the large
specimens than they were in the small specimens, it is useful to consider the diagram
shown in Figure 5-33. If the small tensile stresses in the concrete between cracks is not
considered, the longitudinal strain at mid-depth,
x
, is a function solely of the longitudinal
component, w
x
, of the crack width, w, and the crack spacing, S
c
. Therefore, any action
that serves to increase the longitudinal strain,
x
, or the crack spacing, S
c
, is predicted to
increase the crack width, w.
It has been confirmed in this chapter that the primary mechanism of shear transfer in
reinforced concrete elements without stirrups is aggregate interlock. It has been further
established by Walraven (1981) that the capacity of cracks to transfer shear stresses by
aggregate interlock is reduced when crack widths are increased. As shown in Figure 5-33,
shear stresses are transferred across diagonal cracks by aggregate interlock, and the
capacity of these cracks to transfer shear is thus a function of the crack width, w. We can
thus conclude that any action that serves to increase
x
, or the crack spacing, S
c
, will also
cause a reduction in shear strength due to reduced aggregate interlock capacity of the
wider cracks.
208
It has been established that the crack spacings at mid-height scale almost exactly with the
effective depth for equivalent small and large beams. We would therefore expect cracks,
on average, to be about 5 times wider in the 1400mm deep specimens than in the 280mm
deep specimens. It appears, therefore, that the 5 times increase in crack spacing exhibited
by the large specimens resulted in reduced aggregate interlock capacity, and hence
reduced shear strengths.

Figure 5-33: Aggregate Interlock at Cracks
This conclusion can be tested by examining the crack widths in the large and small
specimens. In Figure 5-34, the widest cracks measured in both the large and small
specimens are plotted as a function of the shear stress (and mid-span steel strain). The
crack widths represent the largest width measured on the surface of the specimen at a
load stage. They do not necessarily correspond to the same crack in an individual
specimen, though in general at lower shear stresses the widest cracks were flexural cracks,
while at higher shear stresses the widest cracks were flexure-shear cracks. Since the
comparator gauge used to measure the crack widths had a precision of only 0.05mm, and
the crack widths in the small specimens were very small, comparing the maximum crack
widths increases the accuracy of the crack width measurements in the small beams.
209
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Shear Stress, v (MPa)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

C
r
a
c
k

W
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
d=1400mm
d=280mm
Steel Strain,
s
(x10
-3
)

j
v
VdE
M
=
A jdE
M
=
s w s s
s

Figure 5-34: Maximum Crack Width in Large and Small Specimens
It is clear that considerably wider crack widths were measured in the large specimens
than in the small specimens. Based on the line of best fit shown in the figure, the widest
cracks in the 1400mm deep specimens were 4.8 times wider than the widest cracks in the
small specimens. At shear stresses of about 0.6MPa, which is close to the typical failure
shear stress of the large specimens, the widest cracks in the large specimens tended to be
about 0.4-0.5mm, while they were only 0.05-0.1mm in the small specimens.

210
5.5.2 The Effective Crack Spacing Term
The results presented in this chapter have shown that the effective maximum aggregate
size, a
g,eff
, and the depth, d, have an influence on the failure shear stress. Both are related
to the same phenomenon their effect upon the aggregate interlock capacity of cracks.
Smaller effective aggregate size is associated with smoother crack surfaces with reduced
interlock capacity. Likewise, deeper members are associated with more widely spaced
cracks. In two geometrically similar sections from geometrically similar members with
identical cross-sectional strain profiles, the section with a larger effective depth will
exhibit wider cracks with reduced aggregate interlock capacity.
As both the aggregate size and depth affect the shear strength by aggregate interlock, it is
logical to analyze the experimental results in terms of a single variable that accounts for
both. Such a variable is the effective crack spacing parameter, s
xe
, which accounts for the
crack spacing (through the use of the crack spacing parameter, s
x
) and the effective
maximum aggregate size, a
g,eff
. This term is implemented in the 2004 CSA code
expression for V
c
through the size effect term.
In this experimental study, a wide range of effective crack spacings, from 214mm to
2756mm (8.6-108.5in.), was investigated by varying two variables: d and a
g,eff
. A graph
showing the size effect term as a function of s
xe
is presented in Figure 5-35 along with the
experimental data points. The experimental points for the specimens with the minimum
quantity of stirrups are shown by open symbols at s
xe
=300mm, and will be discussed in
Chapter 7. This figure shows that the size effect factor can accurately model the shear
strength of concrete sections over a wide range of depths and aggregate sizes. Indeed, the
effective crack spacing of 2756mm for L-10H represents, to this authors knowledge, the
largest value of s
xe
tested to date. That the CSA size effect term can offer an accurate
prediction of the shear strength at such a large effective crack spacing, while offering
accurate predictions at low effective depths as well, offers considerable evidence in
support of the concept of the equivalent crack spacing parameter.
211

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
-500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Effective Crack Spacing, s
xe
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Experimental
Average
Simplified MCFT
) 1500 1 (
40 . 0
f
d b V
x
'
c
v w c
+

0.9d s
0.85s
a 16
35s
s
x
x
g
x
xe
=
+
=
(in.)
(mm)

Figure 5-35: The CSA 2004 Size Effect Term
212
5.6 Additional Topics
5.6.1 Specimen L-10H
In Chapter 3, it was shown that specimen AT-1 failed due to loss of beam action on the
east side of the specimen, prior to final failure occurring at a higher load on the west end.
It was shown that the measured shear strains on the east end increased considerably due
to widening of a major diagonal crack, that the steel strains were about the same at the
east quarterspan as they were at midspan, and that it was likely that arching action was
engaged after beam action broke down.
A similar phenomenon was observed in specimen L-10H as part of the aggregate size
series of specimens. High-speed photos of the failure on the west end of the specimen
are shown in Figure 5-36, as are load-deflection graphs at the midspan and east and west
quarterspans. Cracks have been digitally enhance for clarity, except for the large
diagonal failure crack in photos c-f. LVDTs were placed on the north face of the
specimen as indicated in photo a) to measure crack slip and width.
After a load stage was taken at an applied load of 449kN (during which the load had been
reduced by 10%), the specimen was reloaded and again the applied load reached 449kN
(point a). At this point, the two cracks indicated by the dotted lines in photo a) extended
towards the loading point, forming a single failure crack, and the load dropped. This
single crack widened considerably, becoming 2.1mm wide at 382kN. At this point, the
load started to increase again, with this crack continuing to widen. The original failure
load of 449kN was exceeded, and eventually a load of 535kN was reached, at which
point a sudden shear failure occurred on the east end of the specimen.
The large diagonal crack on the west end widened continuously after the initial failure
load of 449kN was reached, as can be clearly seen in the photos. At a load of 535kN, the
crack was 8.7mm wide. From a load of 382kN (photo c)) to the end of the test, additional
213
wide, flat cracks formed closer to the west support. The initial formation of these cracks
can be seen in photo d).
After the initial failure at 449kN, the west quarterspan deflection increased considerably,
and by the end of the test the deflections at the west quarterspan and at midspan were the
same. Likewise, the steel strains at the west quarterspan increased suddenly after the
initial failure at 449kN, and were equal to the midspan strains for the rest of the test.
It was clear during the test that a failure had occurred on the west end, and analysis of the
measured shear strains at the west quarterspan indicates that this is likely the case. In
Figure 5-37, the shear strains measured at the east and west quarterspans are plotted,
along with the shear strains measured in AT-1, DB165 and DB180. For comparison, the
shear strains in L-50N2 are plotted. In this test, the load did not immediately drop to zero
after shear failure; rather, some load was regained, though the initial failure load was not
regained.
The considerable increase in shear strain on the west end of L-10H after a load of 449kN
was reached appears to have been caused by the widening of the large diagonal crack
shown in the high-speed photos. The combination of the following factors is not
consistent with beam action: 1) large, wide diagonal crack, 2) rapidly increasing shear
strains, 3) identical steel strains at the west quarterspan and midspan. It is thus apparent
that beam action broke down in this specimen at an applied load of 449kN. It is
appropriate, when considering design code methods intended to predict the breakdown in
beam action, to use the load of 449kN as the failure load. It appears that the reason strut
action was engaged in L-10H and AT-1 is that the higher concrete strength resulted in
cracking that was closer to the loading point, with more uncracked concrete near the
support. When beam action broke down at a crack located more closely to the load, a
direct strut could more easily form between the load and support.

214

Figure 5-36: High-Speed Photos of South-West Face of Specimen L-10H at Failure
215

Figure 5-37: Shear Stress-Strains at Quarterspans of Various Specimens

216
5.6.2 Acoustic Emission Monitoring of L-50N2R
A series of collaborative studies were conducted by the author and Tatyana Katsaga in
the Rock Physics group of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of
Toronto. Results of these ongoing studies are presented by Katsaga et. al. (2007), and the
full results will be presented by Katsaga in her Ph.D. thesis (in progress). These studies
consisted of instrumenting the side and top faces of several of the 1510mm deep
specimens with an array of piezoelectric sensors to monitor acoustic emissions from
fracture events within the concrete mass as the specimens were loaded to failure.
The acoustic emission (AE) monitoring system used is shown in Figure 5-38. The arrays
consisted of 24 sensors (16 receivers and eight pulsers) screwed into the concrete surface,
and the positions of the arrays were determined based on the expected locations of cracks
determined from previous tests. Large arrays (laid out over the entire height of a
member) were used in L-10H and L-10HS to monitor and locate cracks from initial
flexural cracking to final failure, and small arrays were used in other members (L-
50N2/50N2R, L-20D/20DR and L-20L/20LR) to permit detailed mapping of fracturing
around coarse aggregate and within the cement paste. The goals of the studies were to
gain insight into the mechanisms of shear failure and to examine the application of AE
techniques designed for the study rock fracture to the study of fracture in concrete.
Active and passive monitoring methods were used. Active monitoring consisted of the
application of ultrasonic pulses from the eight transmitter sensors and analysis of the
wave velocities to determine the progression of damage in the concrete through its load
history. Passive monitoring consisted of the recorded of acoustic emission events located
within the mass of concrete. These acoustic emission events occurred due to a release in
strain energy when cracking occurred. Continuous waveforms, up to four minutes long,
were recorded for each of the sixteen receivers at the time of final failure, while triggered
events were recorded throughout the load history of the specimen. Triggered events were
recorded when a particular event exceeded a pre-defined threshold, while the continuous
waveforms consisted of all events that occurred during the four minute interval.
217

Figure 5-38: Acoustic Emission Monitoring System: a) View of Data Acquisition
Hardware, b) Data Acquisition Hardware and Test Setup (L-50N2), c) Schematic of AE
Setup (Katsaga et. al. (2007)), and d) AE Sensor/Pulser
The locations of AE events were determined using specialized software in real time using
the known P-wave velocities between sensors (Katsaga et. al. (2007)). This permitted the
comparison of the recorded and located AE events with the formation of visible cracks on
the surface of the specimens, and the relation of both to the applied load.
Located AE events for specimen L-50N2R are shown in Figure 5-39 as a function of the
time prior to failure. Each set of events are those that occurred within the indicated time
interval, and these are superimposed over the visible crack pattern at the end of the time
interval. The visible crack pattern was determined from high-resolution digital photos of
the area taken at a rate of 3-4 frames per second. Also shown in Figure 5-39 is the
applied load at the end of the indicated time interval. In this test, the applied load
reached approximately the peak load at about 150 seconds prior to failure and this load
stayed essentially constant as the final failure crack extended.
218
For this test, a concentrated AE sensor array was used, and only events located within, or
very close to, the array could be accurately located. In this test, the formation of two
cracks could be accurately monitored using the AE system: crack (a) and the final failure
crack, as labelled in the figure. Note that the extension of the final failure crack could be
clearly seen on the photographs, but the extension of crack (a) was not. Only after the
test was concluded was the extension of crack (a) determined. The extension of crack (a)
that occurred from -1920sec prior to failure to failure is thus shown by a dotted line in
Figure 5-39A-F. In Figure 5-39A, the visible cracks at the end of the last load stage prior
to failure (at 1920 seconds prior to failure) are shown. At this time, crack (a) had just
progressed into the sensor array, and would eventually propagate through the entire array
and extend past it towards the loading point.
It is clear that the locations of the AE events match the locations of the visible cracks
very closely, but only within the sensor array, or within a small distance outside of the
array. It is also clear that there was considerable acoustic activity occurring at crack a) as
it propogated through the sensor array. It is also interesting to note in Figure 5-39C that
four AE events were located at the eventual location of the final failure crack up to 1m
ahead of the visible crack tip about two minutes prior to failure. Considerable acoustic
activity can also be observed in intervals E and F ahead of the visible crack tip of the
final failure crack.
It is also instructive to examine Figure 5-40, in which the average number of AE hits per
second per receiver is plotted. It is interesting that the acoustic emission activity
gradually increased at the load was increased from -1920 seconds up to failure. While
the peak load was held for the final 154 seconds (Figure 5-41), the AE activity was
considerably greater than at other times during the test. The results shown in Figure 5-40
indicate the possibility of remotely monitoring members that are in service and that are at
some risk of shear failure. Concentrated arrays of sensors near existing cracks, where
shear failures might be expected, could offer warning that shear cracks are active, and
that the structure may be at risk of imminent failure.
219

Figure 5-39: Located AE Events in L-50N2R
220

Figure 5-40: Average Number of AE Hits Per Second per Receiver
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Movement (mm)
A
p
p
l
i
e
d

L
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
Crack Slip
Crack Width
154 Seconds
Initial Width =0.15mm
Load Stage

Figure 5-41: Crack Slip and Width in L-50N2R
Slip and width LVDTs on north
face of final failure crack
(Figure 5-39)
221
5.6.3 Crack Surface Roughness
After the large specimens failed, the portions of the specimens on either side of the
failure cracks were pulled apart. This permitted the failure cracks to be inspected. It was
found that about 95% of the aggregate had fractured on the surface of the failure crack in
L-10H, constructed with high-strength concrete. This resulted in a smooth crack surface.
In comparison, only about 5% of the aggregate had fractured in the normal-strength
specimens with 3/8, 3/4 and 1.5in. aggregate. See Figure 5-42.
A VIVID 700 non-contact 3D laser scanner manufactured by Konica-Minolta was used to
digitize failure crack surfaces. The surfaces were digitized by scanning a series of
170mm x 170mm individual areas and stitching the small areas together. Each individual
scan gave x, y, z, data on a 200x200 point grid and examples are provided in Figure 5-43.
Examples of larger surface scans that have been stitched together are provided in Figure
5-44. The higher amplitudes of the asperities in the normal strength specimens as
compared to the high-strength specimen are evident. These asperities are uncleaved
coarse aggregate particles, some of which have been identified in Figure 5-43 by arrows.
The specimens with 50mm aggregate exhibited very large asperities on the crack surfaces
due to the large aggregate size used. See Figure 5-45 and the photograph in Figure 5-46,
in which the large scale of the largest aggregate particles can be seen. However, about
20% of the largest aggregate in L-50N1 and L-50N2 had fractured (Figure 5-47).
Inspection of the failure crack surfaces indicated that those aggregates that had fractured
tended to be oriented such that their long axes were perpendicular to the direction of
crack propogation. See Figure 5-48. Aggregate that did not fracture tended to be
oriented in approximately the direction of crack propogation. Furthermore, many of the
asperities caused by the largest aggregate particles exhibited a more gradual slope than in
other specimens with smaller aggregate sizes. That is, the crack appeared to change
direction around the aggregate about an inch before reaching the aggregate/paste
interface.
222

a
g
,
e
f
f

=
0
i
n
.

a
g
,
e
f
f

=
3
/
8
i
n
.

a
g
,
e
f
f

=
3
/
4
i
n
.

a
g
,
e
f
f

=
1
.
5
i
n
.

3 0 0 m m

3 0 0 m m

3 0 0 m m

3 0 0 m m
Figure 5-42: Comparison of Failure Crack Surfaces
223

a) Specimen L-10H (f
c
=73.6 MPa)

b) Specimen L-10N2 (f
c
=40.3 MPa)

c) Specimen L-20N2 (f
c
=33.2 MPa)

Figure 5-43: Comparison of Failure Crack Surfaces in Normal and High-Strength
Concrete
224

0
50
100
150
200
250
0
100
200
300
400
0
20
40
60 (mm)

0 0
100
200
300
400
50
100
150
200
250
0
20
40
60
(mm)

Figure 5-44: Scanned Failure Surfaces in a) High Strength and b) Normal-Strength
Concrete with 9.5mm (3/8in.) Maximum Aggregate Size

a)

b)
225

Figure 5-45: Comparison of Failure Crack Surfaces in Normal-Strength Concrete
226

F
i
g
u
r
e

5
-
4
6
:

S
c
a
n
n
e
d

S
u
r
f
a
c
e
s

o
f

N
o
r
m
a
l

S
t
r
e
n
g
t
h

C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e

S
p
e
c
i
m
e
n
s

0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0 0
2
0
4
0
6
0
(
m
m
)
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
2
0
4
0
6
0
(
m
m
)
8
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0 0
2
0
4
0
6
0
(
m
m
)
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
5
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
2
0
0
2
5
0 0
2
0
4
0
6
0
(
m
m
)
8
0
1
0
0
a
g
,
e
f
f

=

9
.
5
m
m

a
g
,
e
f
f

=

1
9
m
m

a
g
,
e
f
f

=

3
8
m
m

a
g
,
e
f
f

=

5
1
m
m

227

Figure 5-47: Fracturing of Large Aggregates in L-50N1

Figure 5-48: Typical Crack Path in Specimens with 2in. Aggregate
The gradual slope of some of the asperities in the 2in. aggregate concrete resulted in a
wavy appearance on portions of the surfaces. This waviness was also evident in the
surfaces of specimens with smaller aggregate as a result of the natural randomness of the
cracking. However, these waves were rougher in the concrete with smaller aggregate due
to a larger volume fraction of small aggregate. It appears, then, that in the 2in. aggregate
concrete, some of the largest aggregates were buried beneath the waviness of the
surface. But, due to a smaller volume fraction of small aggregate, these waves were
smoother than in concrete made with smaller maximum aggregate sizes.
228
5.6.4 Distribution of Strain in Longitudinal Steel
Figure 5-49 shows the strains measured using the zurich targets at the level of the
longitudinal steel in the large specimens at a load of 500kN. The data shown is the
average of both the east and west sides of specimens L-10N1, L-20N1, L-20N2, L-40N2
and L-50N2. Combining the data such as this reduced the significant scatter in the data
from individual tests. The x data points correspond to strains measured by gauges
placed on the reinforcement. This figure shows that shifting the rebar strain diagram so
as to account for the effect of shear more accurately predicts the rebar strain at the critical
location, located about d from the load. The reinforcement strain thus depends not only
on the moment, but the shear as well. Lastly, it is interesting to note that the rebar strains
near the supports are very small, and are accurately predicted based on the uncracked
response.

Figure 5-49: Strains in Zurich Targets at Level of Longitudinal Steel
229
5.6.5 Load Cycles Specimen L-10N2
Specimen L-10N2 was cycled between 0kN to 420kN and 0 to 450kN prior to failure
during a cycle at almost 450kN. During the cycles, cracks on the east end were
instrumented with LVDTs to measure slip and width. See Figure 5-50, in which the
extent of the cracks at various cycles are is also shown. It can be seen that crack widths
and slips increase as the cycles progressed. For example, the critical crack (C3) increased
in width from 0.18mm to 0.3mm during cycles at 450kN. These measurement would
seem to indicate that cracks can extend and widen considerably after only a small number
of cycles at high load in members such as these. Since the major mechanism of shear
transfer in these elements is aggregate interlock, they would appear to be particularly
susceptible to the effects of high-load/low-cycle fatigue.

Figure 5-50: Measured Crack Widths and Slips in L-10N2
230
5.7 Concluding Remarks
The primary mechanism of shear transfer in beams and slabs constructed without shear
reinforcement is aggregate interlock, and failure is initiated by breakdown of aggregate
interlock capacity at a crack. It is inconsistent with experimental evidence to assume that
the entire shear force is transferred in the compression zone. Clearly, then, shear design
provisions that are intended to match experimental observations should recognize the
critical importance of aggregate interlock. The crack width/spacing explanation for the
size effect discussed in this chapter directly predicts that it is reduced aggregate interlock
capacity in large members that causes the size effect in shear. Experimental studies
reported in this chapter show that decreasing maximum aggregate size can significantly
decrease the shear capacity of thick slabs. Analysis of crack widths and spacings
indicated that both increased in direct proportion with the effective depth. Measurements
of crack widths during cycling at high loads indicate that they increased significantly
during cycling.
Inspection of the failure crack surfaces indicated that the cracks became rougher as the
effective maximum aggregate size increased. The failure surface of the high-strength
concrete specimen was very smooth, as almost all of the aggregate had fractured. As
Walraven (1981) and others have discussed, crack surfaces with larger asperities are
better able to transfer shear stresses, hence it appears that the higher shear strengths
exhibited by specimens with larger aggregate sizes are a result of enhanced aggregate
interlock capacity. That the increase in shear strength at larger aggregate sizes is
unreliable may be a result of increased aggregate fracturing.
The ACI method is capable of accurately predicting V
c
of members without stirrups if
their heights and concrete strengths are similar to the original experimental set. The
experiments described in this chapter, however, have shown that the ACI design code can
seriously overestimate the beam-shear capacity of thick slabs. This is because the
database used to derive the ACI expression for V
c
did not include members large enough
231
to exhibit the size effect. As such, the thick transfer slab in Figure 5-1 will not be safely
designed if the ACI expression for V
c
is employed. To provide an adequate level of
safety, the current ACI expression for V
c
should be replaced with an expression that
accounts for the size effect in shear. Until the current expression for V
c
is replaced, it is
recommended that either the 2004 CSA method, Equation (2-23), or the AASHTO-LRFD
shear design method be employed. If one of these methods is used to design the transfer
slab in Figure 5-1, it will be found that minimum shear reinforcement is required. For
example, the 2004 CSA code predicts that, without stirrups, the transfer slab will fail at a
shear stress of 79psi (0.55MPa) which is less than the 82psi (0.57MPa) unfactored
service load shear stress.
It must be stressed that beam-shear failures in members constructed without shear
reinforcement are extremely brittle and typically occur with little or no warning. Both
cracks widths and deflections tend to stay very small, even when close to shear failure.
Furthermore, shear failures in these structural elements become more brittle as the depth
increases and as the concrete strength increases. To ensure that the ultimate strength is
governed by flexure rather than shear, design engineers should consider using stirrups for
all critically important structural members, such as thick transfer slabs. This will be
explored further in Chapter 7.

Shear Behaviour of Slabs and Beams

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shear Behaviour of Slabs and Beams

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shear Behaviour of Large, Lightly-Reinforced Depth and Aggregate Size

Concrete Beams and One-Way Slabs

You might also like