MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION

(MSBTE)

2024-25
 MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OFTECHNICAL
EDUCATION
TRIMURTI POLYTECHNIC, JALGAON
(1173)
Branch Name : Civil Engineering.

Subject Name and Code : DSR(22502)

Academic year : 2024-2025
Semester : Fifth
Project report on
Brief Study Of Shear Rainforcement.

No. NAME OF THE STUDENT ENROLLMENT NO.

1 Abhishek Pitamber Gaikwad 23611840036

PROJECT GUIDE

Signature of Faculty.

1
 MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION.

CERTIFICATE

This is Certify that Mr. Abhishek Pitamber Gaikwad of Fifth Semester of

Diploma in Civil Engineering of institute of Trimurti Polytechnic Jalgaon
has Completed the Micro- Project Satisfactorily in subject in DSR (22502) for
Academic year 2024-2025 as prescribed in the curriculum

Place : Jalgaon

Date :

Enrollment No : 23611840036.

Subject Teacher Head of Department

2
 EVALUATION SHEET FOR THE MICRO PROJECT

Academic year : 2024-2025

Course code : 22502 Semester : 5th

Title of the project: Brief Study Of Shear Rainforcement

Major learning outcomes achieved by students by doing the project

1. Practical outcome:
2. Unit outcomes in Cognitive domain:
3. Outcomes in Affective domain:

Marks out Marks out of

of6 for 4for
Roll Student Name performanc performance Total
. ein group inoral/ outof 10
No activity presentatio
. (D5 Col.8) n(D5
Col.9)
1 Abhishek Pitamber Gaikwad

(Sign of Faculty)

1
 WEEKLY PROGRESS REPORT

SR.NO. WEEK ACTIVITY SIGN OF DATE

PERFORMED GUIDE

1 st Discussion and
1
finalizationof topic
2 2nd Preparation and
submissionof Abstract
3 3rd Literature Review

4 4th Collection of Data

5 5th Collection of Data

6 6th Discussion and outline

of Content
7 7th Formulation of Content

8 8th Editing and proof Reading

of Content
9 9th Compilation of Report
and Presentation
10 10th Seminar

11 11th Viva voce

12 12th Final submission of

microproject

Sign of the student Sign of the Faculty

2
 INDEX

SR.NO CONTENT PAGE NO.

1. Introduction 04

Objectives
2. 05-06

Methodology
3. 07-09

Test Results
4. 10

Discussion
5. 11-19

6. Conclusion 20

7. Reference 21

3
 Introduction

Shear failures in structural elements result in dangerous and sudden structural failures.
Therefore, designers must always prevent shear failure and, a well-designed reinforced
concrete structure, even when subjected to extreme loadings, should not fail in shear.
Unlike
flexural failures, shear failures demonstrate very brittle failure patterns, especially,
members
with inadequate shear reinforcement can explicitly fail with limited prior warning.
Therefore,
it is generally required to provide adequate shear reinforcement to avoid brittle failure
after
the formation of the critical diagonal shear crack, and also to maintain the crack width at a
satisfactory level

In general, reinforced concrete beams constructed out of High Strength Concrete (HSC)
have
shown very brittle failure modes due to smooth crack surfaces .
Further, beams with larger depths and lower amounts of longitudinal reinforcement can
experience very brittle failure due to the larger width of the diagonal cracks .
In both scenarios, the aggregate interlock mechanism is incapacitated resulting in a lower
shear strength after the formation of the critical shear crack. Thus,
in a transversely reinforced beam, stirrups perform a major role in safeguarding the
aggregate interlock mechanism by controlling the crack width of diagonal shear cracks .
According to shear design practice, if the design sectional shear force is greater than the
sectional shear resistance provided by the concrete,

shear reinforcement should be provided to balance the design shear force and the sectional
capacity. If the design shear strength is lower than the shear resistance provided by
concrete, depending on the size of the member, a minimum amount of shear reinforcement
should be provided to account for uncertainties in evaluating the shear capacity provided
by
concrete .
The reserve strength index, which was initially introduced by Johnson and Ramirez, was
effectively used in evaluating the shear resistance of shear reinforcement. It is always
necessary to maintain a uniform reserve strength and reserve deflection in order to
minimize the brittle failures, especially for HSC elements and deeper elements.
According to the shear design guidelines in the Australian concrete design code (AS 3600-
2018) and the Canadian code (CSA A23.3-04), a minimum amount of shear reinforcement
should be provided depending on the level of the design shear force .
4
The AS 3600-2018 and Australian bridge design code (AS 5100-2017) provide two
different
limiting levels of shear force to decide the requirement of shear reinforcement.
This difference can lead to confusion among structural engineers. Later, AS 3600-2018
amendment 2 was released for public discussion, in which a new factor, ks was defined .
Further, Eurocode 2 recommends providing the minimum amount of shear reinforcement
if VEd≤VRd,c except for members such as slabs (solid, ribbed or hollow core slabs) and
members with minor structural importance (e.g. lintels) . Moreover, according to the
current
ACI code (ACI 318-19), minimum shear reinforcement must be provided if the design

force is greater than ∅λfc'bwd (psi) .

shear

Thus, it is clear that design codes have imposed different levels of requirements to provide
shear reinforcement. It is now a suitable time to resolve this concern since two major code
provisions were published recently (AS 3600-2018 and ACI.
This paper presents a database of shear tests of beams with minimum shear reinforcement
collected from literature and an investigation into parameters which influence the reserve
strength of shear reinforcement.

This paper also discusses the differences among requirements to provide shear
reinforcement among current codes of practice. The safety margins to provide shear
reinforcement according to AS 3600-2018, AS 3600-2018 amendment 2, ACI 318-19 and
AS
5100-2017 were reviewed using a database of shear tests of beams without shear
reinforcement.

Shear reinforcement, often referred to as shear stirrups or shear ties, is a crucial

component in reinforced concrete structures designed to resist shear forces. These forces
can occur due to various loads, such as vertical loads, wind, or seismic activity, and can
lead to potential failure modes like shear cracking or sliding.

Key Points about Shear Reinforcement:

Purpose: The primary function of shear reinforcement is to enhance the shear strength of
concrete beams and slabs, preventing brittle failure and ensuring stability.
Types: Common forms of shear reinforcement include:
Stirrups: Typically U-shaped or closed-loop bars placed vertically within a beam.
Ties: Used in columns and walls to hold the main reinforcement in position while resisting
shear.
Design Codes: The design and placement of shear reinforcement are governed by various
5
building codes and standards, which provide guidelines on the minimum requirements
based on factors like span length and loading conditions.
Placement: Proper placement of shear reinforcement is essential for its effectiveness. It is
usually positioned in regions of high shear stress, such as near supports and points of load
application.

Objectives
The main objective of this research is to experimentally investigate the impact of longitudinal
spacing of stirrups to depth ratio (S/d), transverse spacing of stirrup’s branches to depth ratio
(S’/d), and the ultimate shear reinforcement stress (m.Fys) on the structural behavior of
shallow/wide RC beams in terms of failure mode, first crack, shear capacity, beam stiffness, and
ductility, and finally, assessing the shear design provisions in six different design codes. The
methodology used is illustrated

6
 Methodology

1. Samples Configurations

The experimental research program consisted of seven RC beams with the same dimensions
(1200 x 600 x 200 mm), same material (Fc’=31 MPa), the same lower reinforcement (As =
12T18, Fy = 416 MPa) and the same upper reinforcement (As’=8T10, Fy=416 MPa). All the
beams were tested up to failure in a three-point bending test with a span of (1050 mm) which is
equivalent to (shear span/depth) ratio of (525/180=2.9). The impact of each studied parameter
was investigated using three wide beam specimens as follows:

The effect of longitudinal spacing of stirrups to depth ratio (S/d) was studied using specimens B1,
B2, and B3. Each specimen had (S’/d=1.10), (.Fys= 0.77 MPa) but (S/d= 0.55, 0.25, and 1.10)
respectively. The influence of the transverse spacing of stirrup’s branches to the depth ratio (S’/d)
was explored with specimens B1, B4, and B5, where all of them had (S/d=0.55), (.Fys= 0.77
MPa) but (S’/d= 1.10, 0.67, and 3.33) respectively. Finally, the impact of ultimate shear
reinforcement stress (.Fys) was investigated by beams B1, B6, and B7, where all of them had
(S/d=0.55), (S’/d=1.10) but (.Fys= 0.77, 0.44 and 1.21 MPa) respectively. Table 1 summarizes
the configurations of all tested samples.

7
8
 2. Test Setup and Instrumentation

All seven wide beam specimens were tested to failure using a monotonic load through a three-
point bending test. The testing took place within a concrete laboratory at El Shorouk Academy in
El Shorouk City, Egypt. Within the laboratory, a testing setup was established, featuring a 1000
KN hydraulic jack as depicted in Figure 2-b. During the testing process, the specimens were
positioned within the testing frame. Two cylindrical steel bars were used as supports. One of
these bars was fixed to a base plate to replicate a hinged support, while the other steel bar
remained unfixed, serving as a roller support. The midpoints of the specimens were aligned
beneath the hydraulic jack. To transfer the load from the jack to the beam, a distributing steel
beam was deployed, transforming the point load from the jack into a distributed load on the
beam. The configuration of the test setup is visually represented

Samples instrumentation and test configurations,

a) test setup, b) testing frame, c) longitudinal rebars strain gauge, d) stirrups strain gauge, e)
LVTDs locations

9
Each tested beam was equipped with two strain gauges. One strain gauge was positioned at the
midpoint of the central longitudinal tension rebar, while the other was located on the outer branch
of the stirrup, approximately 100 mm from the support. The purpose of the first strain gauge was
to identify the flexural failure mode, whereas the second strain gauge was used to identify the
failure mode. Additionally, the mid-span deflection of the specimens was measured using two
LVTDs (Linear Variable Differential Transformers), placed beneath the beam on its front and
back sides. Finally, the load applied during the testing of the specimens was measured using a
load cell attached to the hydraulic jack. Throughout the entire testing process, all measurements
were automatically recorded by a data acquisition system. Figures 2-c, 2-d, and 2-e provide a
visual representation of the locations of the strain gauges and LVTDs.

10
 Test Results

The data acquisition system had automatically logged the applied load, mid-span deflection, and
strain measurements in both ties and tension rebars for all the tested specimens of the wide-
shallow beams. Additionally, visual observation and documentation of crack patterns, their
locations, orientations, and propagation were conducted on the samples. The wide-shallow beams
were subjected to strain-controlled loading at a rate of 1.0 mm/min. The initial flexural crack on
the lower surface of each specimen was identified, and the corresponding load and deflection
values were recorded. Subsequently, the applied load was progressively increased until the point
of failure. Figure 3 illustrates the load deflection curves that were recorded up to the failure loads
(maximum loads). Furthermore, Table 2 provides a summary of the recorded values,
encompassing the load and deflection measurements at the first crack stage and the ultimate
stage, along with the ultimate strains present in both ties and tension rebars. The final column in
the table showcases photographs depicting the observed crack patterns.

Load - Deflection curve of the tested wide beams specimens

11
 Discussion

I. Mode of Failure

All the tested beams exhibited similar behavior throughout the testing process. Initially, vertical
flexural cracks initiated on the lower surface of the beams at their mid-span. The quantity and
width of these cracks increased progressively as the load was applied. At a certain point, diagonal
cracks emerged, connecting the load with the applied point and the supporting points. These
diagonal cracks were extended in length and width until the eventual failure of the beams; the
details can be found in Table 2. The failure modes that were observed in all cases were
characterized by gradual and ductile behavior, lacking sudden changes, as visually depicted in
Table 2. Visual observations strongly suggested that the failure mechanism for all beams was
primarily due to shear stress. Analyzing the maximum strain values listed in Table 2 revealed that
the strain in the tension rebars had remained below their yield strain (εy = Fy/Es = 416/200 000 =
2080 μ-strain). This observation indicated that the specimens did not experience failure due to
bending. Conversely, the strain values in the ties surpassed the yield strain (εys = Fys/Es =
233/200 000 = 1165 μ-strain), implying that the failure of all specimens had occurred due to
shear stress. Comparing the results of specimens B1, B2, and B3, it was indicated that crack
density increases with increasing (S/d), although they all almost had the same failure load.

II. First Crack Width

The initial crack loads for the tested wide-shallow beam specimens were recorded in Table 2.
These loads were primarily influenced by the specimen’s cross-sectional dimensions, the tensile
strength of the concrete, and, to a minor extent, the reinforcement ratio. Consequently, it's logical
that all tested beams exhibited nearly identical first crack loads. The theoretical first crack load is
about 92 kN (considering Ft = 0.6 √Fc'), which almost equals the measured values except for
three samples: B3 (Pcr = 83 kN & S/d = 1.10), B6 (Pcr = 80 kN & µ = 0.19%), and B7 (Pcr =
100 kN & µ.Fys = 1.21 MPa). These results indicated that increasing the (S/d) from 0.55 to 1.10
decreases the first crack load by 10%, decreasing the shear reinforcement ratio (µ) to the
minimum allowed value decreases the first crack load by 13%, and finally, increasing the
ultimate shear reinforcement stress to almost five times the minimum value increases the first
crack load by 8%. Figure 4 presents the relationship between the theoretical and experimental
first crack loads.

12
 Experimental and theoretical first crack load values of tested beams, (kN)

III. Shear Capacity

Figure a illustrates the relationship between the total shear strength (vu) and (S/d). It was clear
that using longitudinal spacing between the stirrups (S) larger than (0.5d) had reduced the shear
strength. On the other hand, the unexpected reduction in shear strength at S/d = 0.28 may be
because of some internal voids or honeycombs due to the very narrow spacing between stirrups
(only 45 mm). Similarly, Figure 5-b shows the relation between (S’/d) and (vu), which also
indicated that using transverse spacing between the stirrup’s branches with a value greater than
(0.5d) had reduced the shear strength of the specimens. Besides that, two more points could be
noted. The first is that both fitting equations showed the same theoretical (vu) value at zero
spacing (3.33 MPa). The second note is that the slope of the fitting line of (S) is twice that of (S'),
which means that the reduction effect of the longitudinal spacing is twice the effect of the
transverse spacing.

13
Total shear strength (vu) Vs a) (S/d), b) (S’/d), and c) Shear reinforcement strength

The total shear capacities (Vu) of the tested beams are equal to half the ultimate load values (Pu)
mentioned in Table 4, and the ultimate total shear strength (vu) is the ultimate capacity divided
by the cross-section area (vu = Vu/b.d). This shear strength is the sum of the concrete
contribution (vc), longitudinal rebar contribution (v), and shear reinforcement contribution (vs)
as follows:

𝑢=𝑣𝑐+𝑣 +𝑣𝑠
(1)

Since all the tested beams have the same dimensions, concrete strength, and longitudinal rebars,
they all have the same concrete contribution and longitudinal rebar contribution (vc+v), and
only the shear reinforcement contribution (vs) is responsible for the difference in total shear
strengths. Plotting the total shear strength (vu) of beams B1, B6, and B7 against their theoretical
ultimate shear reinforcement strength (4 stirrups × Ash.fys) as shown in Figure 5-c showed that
(vc+v) equals 1.24 MPa for all the samples, which matches the results of the first part of this

14
research . The difference between (vu) and (1.24 MPa) is (vs).

method is particularly effective in arid and semi-arid regions where surface water is scarce,
making it a sustainable solution for water management and conservation. By implementing
subsurface harvesting, communities can bolster their resilience to climate variability and water
scarcity.

IV. Comparison with Codes of Practice and Previous Studies

Both total shear strength and shear strength contributed by the shear reinforcement (vu & vs) of
the tested beams were calculated using the formulas from six of the most used codes of practice,
besides, two (AI) predictive models obtained from previous studies as shown in Table 3. Both
experimental and calculated values of (vu & vs) for all tested beams are evaluated and
summarized in Table 4 and graphically presented in Figures 6 to 8.

15
16
 Experimental and calculated values of (vs) for all the tested specimens

Experimental and calculated values of (vu) for all the tested specimens

Figure compares the calculated values for the ultimate shear strength contributed by the concrete
(vc) from different design codes against the experimentally obtained values. It had been shown
that the Egyptian Code of Practice (ECP 203) is the most conservative code, while the British
Standards (BS-8110) is the least conservative one. Also, the Euro Code (EN-1991) was the
closest to the experimental results. This point was previously discussed in detail in the previous
17
part of this research . Figure compares the calculated values for the ultimate shear strength
contributed by the reinforcement (vs) from the same six previously mentioned design codes
(although it was intended only for conventional beams) to the experimental results.

The figure assured that the used shear reinforcement was fully functioning, and its experimental
capacity was almost equal to the calculated ones. Another important point that could be noted by
comparing the results of beams B1 to B5 is the effect of the longitudinal spacing (S) and
transversal spacing (S’) of the steel stirrups on the shear reinforcement capacity. This effect was
neglected by all design codes, although all five beams had the same (vs) value regardless of their
(S and S’) values, but the experimental values showed the shear capacity contributed by the shear
reinforcement was affected by (S and S’). Finally, Figure 8 compares the calculated values for
the ultimate total shear strength (vu) calculated from the same six design codes and provisions
with two AI predictive models, Genetic Programming (GP) and Evolutionary Polynomial
Regression (EPR), obtained from previous studies.

Figure illustrates that the experimentally measured strategy for sustainable water management.
By implementing permeable surfaces, constructing recharge basins, and promoting community
engagement, we can effectively enhance groundwater supplies, mitigate flooding, and protect
vital ecosystems. These efforts not only contribute to a more resilient water infrastructure but
also support overall environmental health, making them a key component of sustainable urban
and agricultural planning. values of the shear capacities were within the calculated range. The
average values of the (calculated / measured) ratios were (108, 106, 95, 110, 95, 104, 78, and
86%) for (ACI-318, BS-8110, EN-1991, IS-456, ECP-203, JSCE, GP, and EPR), respectively.
Accordingly, (IS-456) was the least conservative, (EN-1991 and ECP-203) were the most
conservative, and (JSCE) was the closest to the experimental results.

V. Load-Deflection Relationship

The analysis approach by Ramadan et al. [42] was considered. The recorded load-deflection
curves were analyzed with respect to initial stiffness (Ki), final stiffness (Kf), dissipated energy
(DE), and ductility; the definitions of these terms are graphically illustrated in Figure . The
recorded values were listed in Table 5 and graphically presented in Figure .

18
Stiffnesses and ductility of the tested wide beams

19
Studying the initial stiffness (Ki) (blue line) and the final stiffness (Kf) (red line) in Figure , a
slight reduction with increasing both longitudinal and transverse spacing (S and S’) and slight
enhancement with increasing the amount of shear reinforcement. These observations make
perfect sense because the initial and final stiffnesses depend mainly on the gross (un-cracked) and
effective (cracked) inertias, respectively. The stirrups confinement action has a minor preventing
effect on the section cracking; hence, increasing the stirrups spacing reduces the confinement
action and accordingly the stiffness, and on the other hand, increasing the shear reinforcement
amount increases the confinement action and accordingly the stiffness.

Dissipated energy (DE) is a good measurement for the seismic resistance of the element (the area
below the load deflection curve), and hence, it is mainly dependent on both ultimate load and
deflection values (Pu, u). Referring to Figure , the curves of B1 to B5 showed that narrow
stirrup spacing (longitudinal or transversal) increases the ultimate load and decreases the ultimate
deflections, which has some balance and has a minor effect on the (DE). Accordingly, Figure
1showed a minor increase in the (DE) with increasing (S and S’). On the other hand, the curves
of B1, B6, and B7 in Figure showed that increasing the amount of shear reinforcement had
increased both (Pu and u) and accordingly, it had significantly increased (DE), as illustrated in
Figure.

Similarly, ductility is the ratio between mid-span deflection at the crack stage and the ultimate
stage. Table 2 showed that all the tested beams had almost the same cracking deflection values
because the cracking stage depends mainly on the un-cracked inertia, which was the same for all
tested specimens; thus, the value of ductility depends mainly on the ultimate deflection value. As
mentioned above, narrow stirrup spacing (longitudinal or transverse) decreases the ultimate
deflections. The slight increase in ductility with the increase in spacing is clarified in Figure 10.
Also, Figure indicates a significant increase in the ultimate deflection with increasing the amount
of shear reinforcement, which justifies the significant increase in ductility shown in Figure .

20
 Conclusions

This research has experimentally investigated the impact of longitudinal spacing of stirrups to
depth ratio (S/d), transversal spacing of stirrup’s branches to depth ratio (S’/d), and the ultimate
shear reinforcement stress (.Fys) on the structural behavior of shallow/wide RC beams. Seven
shallow RC beams with the same dimensions and materials but with different shear
reinforcement amounts and spacing were tested up to failure. The recorded results were studied,
analyzed, and compared against the expressions from six design codes and two (AI) models.
Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

 Changing the longitudinal spacing of the stirrups to the depth ratio (S/d) ranging from 0.28 to
1.1 had affected the total shear capacity of the wide beams. It was concluded that (S/d = 0.5) is
the most optimum and practical ratio, as it gives an advantage of both a maximum shear capacity
of the wide beam and easier execution on site.

 The transverse spacing to depth ratio (S’/d) had ranged from 0.67 to 3.3. (S’/d) ranging from
0.67 to 1.1 was the most efficient in terms of the total shear capacity of the wide RC beams; on
the other hand, (S’/d) ranging from 1.1 to 3.3 had a rapid decline effect on the total shear capacity
of the specimens. That reduction was at its maximum at (s’/d = 3.3) with a 21 % decrease in the
total shear capacity compared to (S’/d = 0.67).

 Ultimate shear reinforcement stress (.Fys) had the most impact on the total shear capacity of
the beams. As the (.Fys) increased, the total shear capacity increased by a staggering 45 %,
from 0.44 to 1.21. As encouraging as these results, it would be uneconomic to use them in
construction without a certain degree of importance. The practical and economic value of (.Fys)
would range from 0.7 to 0.9.

Reference
21
[1] Lubell A, Sherwood T, Bentz E, & Collins MP. (2004). Safe shear design of
large, wide beams. Concrete International, 26(1), 66–78.

[2] Sherwood, E. G., Lubell, A. S., Bentz, E. C., & Collins, M. P. (2007). One-Way
Shear Strength of Thick Slabs and Wide Beams. (2006). ACI Structural Journal,
103(6), 794-802. doi:10.14359/18229.

[3] Soliman, A. A., Mansour, D. M., Khalil, A. H., & Ebid, A. (2023). The Impact
of Aspect Ratio, Characteristic Strength and Compression Rebars on the Shear
Capacity of Shallow RC Beams. Civil Engineering Journal (Iran), 9(9), 2259–2271.
doi:10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-09-012.

[4] Serna-Ros, P., Fernandez-Prada, M. A., Miguel-Sosa, P., & Debb, O. A. R.

(2002). Influence of stirrup distribution and support width on the shear strength of
reinforced concrete wide beams. Magazine of Concrete Research, 54(3), 181–191.
doi:10.1680/macr.2002.54.3.181.

[5] Wang, G., Zhu, F., & Yang, C. (2020). Experimental study on Shear behaviors
of RC beams strengthened with ECC layers. IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering, 780(4), 042024. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/780/4/042024.

22
23