Professional Documents
Culture Documents
128
editor@iaeme.com
Cite this Article: Pinal C. Khergamwala, Dr. Jagbir Singh and Dr. Rajesh
Kumar, Experimental Study on Shear Behavior of Reinforced Recycled
Aggregate Concrete Beams, International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 7(2), 2016, pp. 128139.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=7&IType=2
1. INTRODUCTION
Under the goal of sustainability, the use of recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) has
become an important issue in the field of civil engineering. Continuous efforts are
being made to improve the mechanical properties of RAC as compared to normal
aggregate concrete. There are several modes of failure in concrete structural members.
Due to the fragility of concrete structures, shear failure is one of the most important
and undesirable modes of failure. Shear strength of concrete depends significantly on
the ability of the coarse aggregate to resist shearing stresses. RA used is relatively
weaker than NA in most cases and yielded reduced shear strength. Shear force is
present in beams at sections where there is a change in bending moment along the
span. It is equal to the rate of change of bending moment. An exact analysis of shear
strength in reinforced concrete beam is quite complex.
The reuse of hardened concrete as aggregate is a proven technology - it can be
crushed and reused as a partial replacement for natural aggregate in new concrete
construction. The use of 100% recycled coarse aggregate in concrete, unless carefully
managed and controlled, is likely to have a negative influence on most concrete
properties but literature shows that the compressive strength of concrete up to 50 %
RA have strength in close proximity to that of normal concrete.
2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
Nine reinforced concrete beams were cast and tested, under two point loading for
varying shear span to effective depth ratio (a/d). The section of all the beams (width
thickness) was kept constant at 150 300 mm. To investigate the effect of shear spanto-depth ratio, a/d values of 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 were selected to cover short,
intermediate, and long beams. Accordingly the overall length of the beam specimens
was varied in the range 1.60 m, 2.20 m and 2.70 m. The percentage of tension
reinforcement,
100 Ast
was kept constant 1.1%. Concrete of grade M 20 having
bd
nominal crushing strength of 20 N/ mm2 was used for investigation. Keeping in view
the lower compressive strength of concrete with more than 50 % of recycled
aggregates, concrete mix with more than 50 % recycled aggregates were not taken in
to account for shear investigations and only 25 and 50 % weight replacement of
natural aggregate with recycled aggregate for M 20 grade was considered. Controlled
beams with 100 % natural aggregates (0 % RA) were also cast and tested to compare
the results. The details of the specimens for shear test are listed in the Table 1 below:
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
129
editor@iaeme.com
Overall
length
L (mm)
Effective
Depth
d (mm)
Pt
of
steel
%
Ast
(mm2)
Shear
span-to-depth
Ratio a/d
No. of
specimens
M20R25A1.5P1
1600
265
1.1
452.16
1.5
01
M20R50A1.5P1
1600
265
1.1
452.16
1.5
01
M20R25A2.5P1
2200
265
1.1
452.16
2.5
01
M20R50A2.5P1
2200
265
1.1
452.16
2.5
01
M20R25A3.5P1
2700
265
1.1
452.16
3.5
01
M20R50A3.5P1
2700
265
1.1
452.16
3.5
01
Mix M20
1600
265
1.1
452.16
1.5
01
M20A2.5P1
2200
265
1.1
452.16
2.5
01
M20A3.5P1
2700
265
1.1
452.16
3.5
01
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
130
editor@iaeme.com
M 20
Constituents (kg/m3)
Mix
proportion
by weight
Fly
Ash
%
W/C
ratio
Cement
Fly
Ash
Sand
Aggregates
1:1.5:3.4
25
289
96
578
1310
0.5
131
editor@iaeme.com
failure. Seven deflection gauges were employed to record deflection. The arrangement
of 4 LVDTs attached diagonally in pairs on the side-face of the beams in the shear
zone were done to detect diagonal cracking. The test setup configuration for the shear
tests is shown in Figure. 1.
Figure 1 Test setup configuration for the shear tests
Spreader beam
300
300
300
Hinge
LVDT
Roller
Steel sleeve
LVDT
Effective span
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
132
editor@iaeme.com
Area of
tension
steel,
Ast
(mm2)
Reinforcement
ratio,
=Ast/bd
a/d
Measured
characteristics
strength,
fck
(MPa)
Diagonal
cracking
shear,
Vcr
(kN)
M20A1.5P1
452.16
0.011
1.5
24.17
106.69
191.36
2.684
4.814
M20R25A1.5P1
452.16
0.011
1.5
23.43
88.83
181.97
2.235
4.578
M20R50A1.5P1
452.16
0.011
1.5
24.93
92.43
189.84
2.325
4.776
M20A2.5P1
452.16
0.011
2.5
24.17
50.15
88.16
1.262
2.218
M20R25A2.5P1
452.16
0.011
2.5
23.43
43.95
80.82
1.106
2.033
M20R50A2.5P1
452.16
0.011
2.5
22.67
48.15
89.57
1.211
2.253
M20A3.5P1
452.16
0.011
3.5
23.80
44.95
61.79
1.131
1.554
M20R25A3.5P1
452.16
0.011
3.5
23.43
40.26
58.46
1.013
1.471
M20R50A3.5P1
452.16
0.011
3.5
22.67
43.84
54.78
1.103
1.378
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
133
editor@iaeme.com
60
25% RA
40
50% RA
20
0
1.5
2.5
3.5
0 % RA
25% RA
50% RA
1.5
2.5
3.5
Results indicated that with the increase in a/d ratio, there is sharp decrease in the
shear capacity of the beam. At a/d ratio 1.5, the first cracking load as well as the
ultimate diagonal shear load was observed to be almost double than that at a/d ratio
2.5 and 3.5. At a/d ratios 3.5 and concrete with 50 % of RA, the failure was observed
to be sudden as compared to failure pattern observed for lower a/d ratio 1.5. Crack
width for RAC beams was wider as compared to control beam due to weak bonding
of RA with new concrete. Results also showed that the shear capacity of a RAC
beams with 25 and 50 % RA is comparable, or sometimes superior, to that of a
controlled beam made of conventional concrete.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
134
editor@iaeme.com
Experime
ntal
Failure
Load
Vexp
(kN)
ACI
code
Equatio
n
Canadia
n Code
Equatio
n
IS: 4562000
code
Equatio
n
CEBFIP
Mode
l
Zsutty
Equatio
n
Bazant
Equatio
n
Okamur
a &Higai
Equatio
n
M20A1.5P1
106.69
32.46
39.01
25.91
40.71
79.91
78.71
42.69
M20R25A1.5P1
88.83
32.13
38.40
25.81
40.31
78.72
78.26
42.28
M20R50A1.5P1
92.43
33.02
39.62
26.00
41.16
80.37
79.17
43.15
M20A2.5P1
50.15
30.76
39.01
25.91
34.33
40.44
43.01
39.27
M20R25A2.5P1
43.95
30.44
38.40
25.81
34.01
39.83
42.56
38.87
M20R50A2.5P1
48.15
29.98
37.78
25.70
33.63
39.41
42.10
38.44
M20A3.5P1
44.95
29.82
38.70
25.86
30.53
35.96
34.93
37.41
M20R25A3.5P1
40.26
29.71
38.40
25.81
30.42
35.61
34.71
37.21
M20R50A3.5P1
43.84
29.25
37.78
25.70
30.12
35.23
34.24
36.81
Specimen ID
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
135
editor@iaeme.com
Shear strength, kN
M 20 R 0- 1 %
120
Experimental
100
ACI code
80
Canadian
60
40
CEB- FIP
20
Zsutty
Bazant
1.5
2.5
3.5
Okamura &Higai
Shear strength, kN
M20 R25- 1 %
100
Experimental
80
ACI code
60
Canadian
40
20
Zsutty
Bazant
1.5
2.5
3.5
Okamura &Higai
(b) For M 20 R 25
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
136
editor@iaeme.com
M20 R50- 1 %
Shear strength, kN
100
Experimental
80
ACI code
60
Canadian
40
20
Zsutty
0
1.5
2.5
3.5
Bazant
Okamura &Higai
(c) For M 20 R 50
Figure 5: Comparison between predicted and Experimental Results
The comparison of the experimental results with predicted values for all the seven
models are presented in Fig. 5 (a), (b) and (c) for M 20 with 0, 25 and 50 % RA.
Almost similar trend of normal aggregate concrete members is followed by RAC
beams. There is no negative impact of the replacement of 25 and 50 % RA. Analytical
values and experimental results revealed that a/d ratio significantly affects the shear
capacity of recycled aggregate concrete beams. Most of the equations are under
estimating the shear capacity at lower a/d ratios. When the a/d ratio is less than 1.5,
strut action prevails and the shear resistance is very high. For a/d ratio 1.5 the
experimental values showed remarkable increase in shear strength compared to
various design models. Only predicted shear capacity using Zsutty and Bazant
Equation had followed the same pattern for all the three a/d ratios but the values were
still lower than experimental values for all concrete mixes. For a/d ratios 2.5 and 3.5
almost all the models followed the same trend but with quite lower values.
5. CONCLUSION
For a/d ratio 1.5, there is sharp increase (almost double) in shear capacity of RAC
beams as compared to a/d ratio 2.5 and 3.5. There is not much difference in the shear
capacity of RAC beams for a/d ratio 2.5 and 3.5.
For higher a/d ratio 3.5, sudden shear failure of RAC beams were observed as
compared with a/d ratio 1.5. There is less difference between first crack load and
ultimate shear load for a/d ratio 3.5.
Crack width for RAC beams was wider as compared to control beam due to weak
bonding of RA with new concrete.
ACI as well as IS code give overly conservative shear capacity predictions of
recycled aggregate concrete beams without web reinforcement at all a/d ratios
because ACI code presented a formula for the prediction of shear cracking load in
1963, which was developed by the linear regression based on thousands of beam test
results subjected to UDL only.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
137
editor@iaeme.com
The Canadian code considered only compressive strength of concrete. It has not taken
into account the effect of shear span to depth ratio and longitudinal tension
reinforcement on shear strength of beams. The shear resistance of RAC member
predicted based on Canadian code underestimates the actual shear capacity of
member at all a/d ratios.
Shear capacity of the RAC members predicted based on CEB-FIP model and
Okamura- Higai equation showed conservative values at all a/d ratios.
Zsutty equation is more appropriate and simple to predict the shear strength of both
shorter and long beams as it takes into account size effect and longitudinal steel effect
for RAC beams also.
The Bazant equation has better agreement with the test data. In this equation five
parameters (fc, , a,d, d and da) are correlated with ultimate shear strength of
rectangular beams, especially the effect of aggregate size, which plays very important
role in the shear strength.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express my sincere thanks to I. K. G. Punjab Technical University, Kapurthala,
India for providing strong platform for pursuing Ph.D. Authors acknowledge the
help received from Head and faculty members of the Civil Engineering Department,
Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College, Ludhiana, Punjab, for making testing
facilities available to them. The invaluable cooperation of the laboratory staff of
Heavy Testing Laboratory and Concrete Testing Laboratory of Civil Engineering
Department is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
ACI 318-02, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, (ACI 318-02)
and commentary, (ACI 318R-02). Detroit: American Concrete Institute, 2002.
Angelakos D, Bentz E C and Collins M P, Effect of concrete strength and
minimum stirrups on strength of large members, ACI Structural Journal; 2001,
98, 290300.
Brito J D and Richardo R, Recycled aggregate concrete methodology for
estimating its long term properties, Indian journal of engineering and material
sciences, 2010, volume 17, 449- 462.
Etxeberria M, Mar AR, Vzquez E, Recycled aggregate concrete as structural
material. Mater Struct; 2007, 40:52941.
Fathifazl G, Razaqpur A G, Burkan Isgor O and Abbas A, Shear capacity
evaluation of steel reinforced recycled concrete (RRC) beams, Engineering
Structures journal, 2011, volume 33, 10251033.
Gonzlez F, Martnez A and Eiras L, Structural shear behavior of recycled
concrete with silica fume, Construction and Building Materials journal, 2009,
volume 23, 34063410.
Han B C, Yun H D and Chung SY, Shear capacity of reinforced concrete
beams made with recycled-aggregate, ACI Special Publication SP 200-31,
Farmington Hills, MI, USA: American Concrete Institute; 2001, 503-515.
Hansen TC, Narud H. Strength of recycled concrete made from crushed
concrete coarse aggregate, Concrete International, 1983, No. 1, 579-83.
I. Gull, Testing of strength of recycled waste concrete and its applicability,
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2011, vol. 137, 15.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
138
editor@iaeme.com
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp
139
editor@iaeme.com