Structures Notes

1993NST_5g

Shear in reinforced concrete piles and circular columns

Ian Feltham, AR&D, London

Abstract
This Note proposes a procedure for designing piles and circular columns for shear; it recommends
that the method given in the Highways Agencys design manual should not be used. A paper1, making
the same proposals as this Note, has been published in The Structural Engineer.

This Note proposes a procedure for calculating the capacity of spiral links and discusses the
recommendations of the British Cement Association (BCA) in a paper by Clarke and Birjandi2. This
paper confirms that design for shear in circular sections can follow the approach given in BS54003
and BS81104 for rectangular sections with the following specific definitions:

(1) The area of tension reinforcement, Ast, should be taken as the area of the steel below the
mid-depth of the section
(2) The effective depth, d, should be taken as the distance from the extreme compression fibre to
the centroid of the tension reinforcement
(3) When determining the shear capacity of the concrete or the shear reinforcement, the term
bvd, later referred to as Av, should be taken as the area of concrete from the extreme
compression fibre down to depth d.

However, equilibrium necessitates the consideration of both the links curvature and the asymmetry of
spirals, neither of which is considered by the BCAs proposals (BCA method.

Although rules compatible with the first two of the above recommendations have been incorporated
into BD42/005 and BD74/006 (BD74 method), these procedures state that the width of the section for
the calculation of shear stresses should be taken as the pile diameter. This definition results in the
shear stress being calculated using an area much greater than that of the section down to the neutral
axis, sometimes even greater than the full cross-sectional area. This seems most unlikely, a misgiving
confirmed by the BCAs tests, which are discussed later in this Note.

The following method is recommended for calculating the area of circular and spiral links to BS8110.
It considers the links curvature and the asymmetry of spirals and provides a safe solution compared
with the test results. A corresponding approach can be used with BS5400.

Circular links

link forces acting on section

circular link longitudinal steel failure plane link cut by failure plane to right of failure plane

b
Fi cosi
Fi
rs d V
i

r rsv F1
Fn rsv
a a

centroid of steel below centre line d shear force taken by links equals
sum of Fi cosi, for i = 1 to n

1a Cross section 1b Elevation showing failure plane 1c Link forces on

failure plane

Fig. 1 Geometry of section

Feedback Notes are copyright and published for distribution only within Arup Group Ltd. They are not intended for any third party.

1/5 28 July, 2004

 Structures Notes
1993NST_5g

The effective depth, d, is taken as the depth to the centroid of the steel below the centre line of the
section (a-a on Fig.1a). The position of the centroid depends on the orientation of the bars; for six
bars, the minimum number for a circular section, its distance below the centre line is varies between
0.577rs and 0.667rs. For larger numbers of bars the distance tends to 0.637rs (= 2rs/) below the
centre line. Since the orientation of the cage is usually unknown, it seems reasonable to use this
value for all sections, unless better information is known. The inaccuracy in d will always be less than
4%.

d = r(1+sin )
where sin = 2rs/r (0 < < /2)

The design shear stress is calculated by assuming a uniform stress over the area, Av, of the segment
of the circle above the line a-a:

Av = r2 (/2 + + sin cos )

v = V/Av
where V is the total shear force on the section

v = V / [r2 (/2 + + sin cos )]

The design concrete shear strength, vc, should be obtained from BS8110, Table 3.8. As should be
taken as half the total area of longitudinal steel and bvd should be taken as Av. The value of vc should
be enhanced for axial compression in accordance with clause 3.4.5.12. If v exceeds vc, design
reinforcement is required (if v exceeds 0.5vc nominal links should be provided).

The equation for the area of design reinforcement in BS8110, Table 3.7 can be rearranged to show
that the shear force taken by the links equals (0.95fyv)Asv.d/sv. Therefore, the number of links,
intersected by a failure plane, that contribute to the shear strength of any section equals the effective
depth divided by the spacing of the links. If a failure plane through the links in a circular section (b-b
on Fig.1b) is considered, it will be apparent that the applied shear force can only be resisted by a
component of the force in the links (see Fig.1c). It is not obvious over what depth intersections of the
link with the failure plane should be considered, but it is assumed that only the portion of the link
within the effective depth contributes towards the strength of the section. Hence, the stress that can
be taken by the links equals the sum of the components of force above the plane a-a, over a length of
failure plane equal to the effective depth, d. The maximum design shear stress that can be taken by
the links is given by:

(0.95f yv )A sv r 1 + sin
( / 2 + + sin cos )
2A v s v 1 + sin
2rs
where sin = 0 < < /2
rsv
This stress must be sufficient to meet the deficiency in the shear capacity:

2k.r.s v ( v v c )
A sv
0.95f yv
( / 2 + + sin cos )(1 + sin )
where k=
( / 2 + + sin cos )(1 + sin )

For practical geometries k can be taken as unity.

2r .s v (v v c )
A sv
0.95 fyv
Note that Asv follows the definition given in BS8110. Since each link is cut twice by the shear plane,
Asv is twice the cross sectional area of the link.

Feedback Notes are copyright and published for distribution only within Arup Group Ltd. They are not intended for any third party.

2/5 28 July, 2004

 Structures Notes
1993NST_5g

Spiral links
The shear plane will usually cut a spiral link twice in each revolution, but one side the spiral will be
less beneficial than the other at resisting shear because of its inclination to the shear plane (see
Fig.2). However, to prevent torsion being applied to the concrete section, the two sides of the spiral
must take the same force. It is therefore proposed to consider twice the capacity of the less beneficial
side rather than the net capacity of the spiral.

Asvh, the required sectional area of the spiral link, is given by:

k.r.p( v v c )
A svh
0.95f yv
2
p
1 +
( / 2 + + sin cos )
2rsv
where k =
1 + sin p sin
( / 2 + + sin cos ) (1 + sin )
1 + sin rsv sin
and p is the pitch of the helix

To ensure at least three intersections of the failure plane with the spiral, which are necessary for
equilibrium, the contribution of spiral links to the shear resistance should only be included when p
0.5d. For link geometry complying with this limit, the above expression can be approximated by:
1
k =
1 0.225p / r
r .p(v v c )
A svh
0.95 fyv .(1 0.225p / r )

link forces acting on section

failure plane to right of failure plane
p

b
Fi cosi
Fm
Fi
d V
i

rsv F1

d shear force taken by links equals sum

of 2Fi cosi, for i = 1 to m,
Link cut by failure plane on side where Fi=Fi / [1 + (p / 2rsv)2] and m
where inclination of link is: is the number of intersections of the
less beneficial spiral with the failure plane where
more beneficial inclination of link is less beneficial

2a Elevation showing failure plane 2b Link forces on failure plane

Fig.2 Failure plane through spiral link

The British Cement Association tests

The BCA tested 50 specimens and generally obtained two results from each specimen as shear
failure was tested at both ends. Most of the specimens were of 300mm diameter, although some were
of 152mm and 500mm diameter. High yield longitudinal reinforcement was placed at eight locations
around the section; for the 500mm specimens two or three bars were bunched at each location.
Feedback Notes are copyright and published for distribution only within Arup Group Ltd. They are not intended for any third party.

3/5 28 July, 2004

 Structures Notes
1993NST_5g

Shear reinforcement, where provided, was 6mm or 8mm mild steel circular links but six of the
specimens contained 6mm spiral links of 150mm pitch. Nominal concrete strengths of 25MPa, 35MPa
and 50MPa were used. The specimens were tested horizontally, supported and loaded though
concrete saddles. Loads were applied by a hydraulic jack. The shear span was varied for the 300mm
diameter specimens.

Figs.3a, 3b and 3c compare the test results with calculated resistances, removing the partial factor for
materials in the design equations. The basic shear strength, vc, has been factored by (3d/av) for loads
applied at a distance, av, closer than 3d to the support. This approach, used in BD44/957, the
standard for bridge assessment, was used in the BCA paper as it was considered a more accurate
representation than the factor (2d/av) given in both BS5400 and BS8110.

Test specimens with no shear reinforcement

Fig.3a shows that for piles not containing
shear reinforcement, the experimental
400
resistances are generally a little greater than
350
the theoretical ones calculated using the first
Experimental shear resistance (kN)

three recommendations of the BCA paper. The

300 mean of the ratio of test resistance to
theoretical resistance is 1.11, with a standard
250 deviation of 0.13. This theoretical resistance is
referred to as Vc in this paper. Using the BD74
200 method, the mean ratio reduces to 0.99, with a
standard deviation of 0.11. These figures
150
support the observation that the BD74 method
100
is too optimistic in calculating the shear
strength of the section without shear
50 recomended & BCA reinforcement.
BD74
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Theoretical shear resistance (kN)

3a Sections with no shear reinforcement

Test specimens with links Test specimens with spirals

2.0 2.0
(Experimental shear resistance) / Vc
(Experimental shear resistance) / Vc

1.8 1.8

1.6 1.6

1.4 1.4

recommended recommended
1.2 1.2 BCA
BCA
BD74 BD74

1.0 1.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

(Theoretical shear resistance) / Vc (Theoretical shear resistance) / Vc

3b Sections with link reinforcement 3c Sections with spiral reinforcement

Fig.3 Comparison of experimental with theoretical shear capacities

Feedback Notes are copyright and published for distribution only within Arup Group Ltd. They are not intended for any third party.

4/5 28 July, 2004

 Structures Notes
1993NST_5g

Figs.3b and 3c compare results for piles with circular links and spiral reinforcement respectively. The
theoretical resistances have been calculated using the recommended, BCA and BD74 methods. Both
the experimental and theoretical resistances have been normalised by Vc, the theoretical resistance
calculated using the first three recommendations of the BCA paper. Presenting the results in this way
emphasises that the contribution by the shear reinforcement in all the tests is modest, in all cases
being less than Vc for the links and 0.5Vc for the spirals. There is considerable scatter in these results
and it is difficult to conclude which calculation method represents the test results best. However, there
are no tests for situations where the reinforcement has to take a shear force equivalent to many times
Vc, where the difference between the recommended approach, which considers curvature, and the
other two methods will be more significant.

The BCA method uses a simple reduction factor for spiral links, based on the sine of the angle
between the spiral and the longitudinal axis. The theory to obtain this factor again ignored the
curvature of the links and averaged the contribution of the two sides of the spiral. This may not be a
safe assumption and cannot be confirmed by the experimental tests as only six specimens contained
spiral links and they were all the same size with links of the same diameter and pitch.

References
(1) FELTHAM, I. Shear in reinforced concrete piles and circular columns. The Structural Engineer,
82(11), pp.27-31, 2 June 2004.
(2) CLARKE, J.L. and BIRJANDI, F.K. The behaviour of reinforced concrete circular sections in
shear. The Structural Engineer, 71(5), pp.73-78 & 81, 2 March 1993.
(3) BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS5400: Part4: 1990. Steel, concrete and composite
bridges. Part 4. Code of practice for design of concrete bridges. BSI, 1990
(4) BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS8110: Part 1: 1997. Structural use of concrete. Part 1:
Code of practice for design and construction. BSI, 1997.
(5) HIGHWAYS AGENCY. BD 42/00. Design manual for roads and bridges: design of embedded
retaining walls and bridge abutments. HMSO, 2000.
(6) HIGHWAYS AGENCY. BD 74/00. Design manual for roads and bridges: foundations. HMSO,
2000.
(7) HIGHWAYS AGENCY. BD 44/95. Design manual for roads and bridges: the assessment of
concrete highway bridges and structures. HMSO, 1995.

Related Note
'Shear in piles and columns', Notes on Structures 1991NST_1 (incorporated in this Note)

Originally published in June 1993 as NST40/4

Revised (a) February 2001 - references to 'bd' replaced by Av to avoid possible confusion over
definition of b; notes concerning BS8110 equations 6a and 6b added; editorial changes and
corrections
Revised (b) April 2002 - 0.87 factors on steel strength replaced by 0.95 in accordance with BS8110:
Part 1: 1997
Revised (c) July 2002 - Titles to Fig.4 added
Revised (d) September 2002 - remaining references to bd replaced by Av and to 0.87 by 0.95
Revised (e) July 2003 - Failure plane defined to cut links over a length d, rather than to be at 45;
method of determining spiral resistance amended; reference made to Highways Agency formulae;
figures redrawn, editorial changes
Revised (f) July 2004 - reference made to paper, making the same proposals as this Note; simplified
expression for Asvh modified to be consistent with paper
Revised (g) July 2004 - reference updated for BS8110: Part 1: 1997 and Table 3.8

Feedback Notes are copyright and published for distribution only within Arup Group Ltd. They are not intended for any third party.

5/5 28 July, 2004