Enhancing shear capacity of thin slabs with CFRP shear ...
Transcript of Enhancing shear capacity of thin slabs with CFRP shear ...
AR T I C L E
Enhancing shear capacity of thin slabs with CFRP shearreinforcement: Experimental study
Jan Bielak | Josef Hegger
Institute of Structural Concrete, RWTHAachen University, Aachen, Germany
CorrespondenceJan Bielak, RWTH Aachen University,Institute of Structural Concrete, Mies-VAN-DER-Rohe-Str. 1, 52074, Aachen, Germany.Email: [email protected]
Funding informationFederal Ministry of Education andResearch, Grant/Award Number:03ZZ0380
Abstract
Employing non-metallic reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs)
as textile grids is one promising extension of the utilization range of FRP in con-
crete construction, and thin planar elements reinforced in this manner have high
application potential in bridge or parking garage decks, in façades, or in webs
and flanges of hollow core cross-sections. Existing models for predicting the shear
resistance of such elements were derived for solid cross-sectional dimensions sim-
ilar to conventional steel-reinforced structures, and their application to thin slabs
is debatable. This paper presents the results of an extensive experimental program
on the one-way shear capacity of slabs without and with carbon FPR textile shear
reinforcement. A variation of member height, shear slenderness, and shear rein-
forcement ratio allowed for analysis of the most relevant influencing factors on
shear resistance. Both planar and preformed C-shaped grids enhance the shear
capacity and are suitable as shear reinforcement in thin slabs. The experimental
results are the foundation for the extension of shear models to thin slabs with
FRP reinforcement and for derivation of new unifying shear models that are
applicable to a wider range of reinforcement materials and member dimensions.
KEYWORD S
CFRP, shear, shear slenderness, size effect, slabs, textile reinforcement
1 | INTRODUCTION
With a high tensile strength and excellent resistance tocorrosion, non-metallic reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs) is perfectly suited as rein-forcement for concrete constructions exposed to severeenvironmental conditions. Concrete cover, member
thickness, and thus self-weight can be reduced while pro-viding better load-bearing capacities. Extensive researchwas performed in the past to adapt existing models andto derive new specifications for constructions with FRPreinforcement.1–6 These adaptions aimed at a replace-ment of steel (e.g., References 7,8), and most FRP rein-forcement products that are available and actually usedin practice nowadays are similar in shape to steel rebar(e.g., Reference 9). Existing guidelines and code provi-sions are typically limited to such reinforcement and tosimilar dimensions as in steel-reinforced concrete.10–12
The collapses of thin carbon fiber-reinforced polymer
Discussion on this paper must be submitted within two months of theprint publication. The discussion will then be published in print, alongwith the authors’ closure, if any, approximately nine months after theprint publication.
Received: 20 May 2021 Revised: 28 July 2021 Accepted: 16 August 2021
DOI: 10.1002/suco.202100325
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
© 2021 The Authors. Structural Concrete published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Federation for Structural Concrete
Structural Concrete. 2021;1–17. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco 1
(CFRP)-reinforced parking deck structures described inReference 13 underline that the transfer of these designrules without adaption to thin slabs pose great risk.
The simple replacement of steel does not exploit thetrue potential of the radical innovation in terms of reduc-tion of concrete cover and reduction of self-weight, sincethe cover depth remains defined by the diameter of thebars and bond requirements. New construction and rein-forcing strategies are called for: One promising concept isthe arrangement of fibers in textile fabrics or grids as lon-gitudinal reinforcement of planar elements or as shearreinforcement for linear members. Such elements havehigh application potential, for example, as bridge orparking garage decks,14–17 as façade elements,18–20 or aswebs or flanges in hollow-core cross-sections and profiledlinear members.21–23 The distribution of reinforcementreduces local stress concentrations and better activatesthe concrete, especially for transfer of bond-induced ten-sile stress. This allows for reduction of the concrete coverrequired for bond and leverages the benefits of the corro-sion resistance of nonmetallic reinforcement. Productiontechniques for such grids are long known and commer-cial products are available since 30 years.24,25 However,while for the flexural design of thin slabs with nonmetal-lic reinforcement design models are established, and par-tial safety factors have been proposed26 accurate andgeneral models to predict the shear capacity of elementsin the range of 30–200 mm member thickness withoutshear reinforcement are amiss. Consequently, for con-struction with non-metallic reinforcement in this particu-larly promising range, tedious, and cost-intensive project-specific experiments and approval processes are stillrequired.14,27 For typical reinforced concrete slabs,designers try to avoid the arrangement of shear reinforce-ment as its installation is labor and cost intensive. Yet inspecific situations, it might be required to enhance shearcapacity when increasing concrete strength or addinglongitudinal reinforcement are not sufficient. This callsfor engineering and design models also for thin shear-reinforced slabs. This paper presents the results of alarge-scale experimental program filling this research gapand providing the basis for the derivation and validationof models that are applicable to a wider range of memberheights and various reinforcement types.
2 | EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMAND MATERIALS
2.1 | Test setup and test matrix
The experimental investigation of the one-way shear capac-ity of slabs comprised of 72 slab segments with a width of
200 mm. It is known from steel-reinforced concrete that themember width has either no influence on the relative shearstrength28,29 or that testing slab segments is conservativedue to inner redistribution of loads in case of local fail-ure.30,31 Thus, the relative shear capacity determined onslab segments can be assumed to be representative for widerslabs. All specimens were tested in a three-point single spansetup with one concentrated load spread over the entirewidth of the member with a steel roll (Figure 1). One fixedand one free steel roll provided vertical support. The longi-tudinal reinforcement ratio and strength, the shear slender-ness, and the projecting length of 100 mm at the supportswere selected in such a way that premature flexural oranchorage failure could be prevented. The vertical displace-ments were measured with two LVDTs at the axis of loadintroduction. For a subset of the tests, a digital image corre-lation (DIC) system was employed to trace crack propaga-tion throughout the experiment. All specimens were loadedmonotonically and deformation-controlled with 1 mm/mincrosshead or cylinder velocity.
The experimental program featured different rein-forcement configurations: Reference tests without shearreinforcement, specimens with planar vertical CFRPgrids (CR1), and specimens with C-shaped preformedCFRP grids (CRP1–CRP3) (Figure 2). The memberheight, shear reinforcement ratio, and shear slendernesswere varied systematically (Table 1). These parametersreflect the dimensions of examples from practice.14 In thecore series with 100 and 145 mm member height, threerepetitions per configuration were performed. In themajority of the tests, the concentrated load was appliedin mid-span; only for the largest height of 200 mm, three
a2
h
b
elastomerstrip
Ø 30 mm steel roll
fixed roll free roll
d
Anm: longitudinalreinforcement
F
F
LVDT
A
A
section A-A
side view
a1e1=100 e2=100
LLtot
warp 0°
direction of casting
LVDT
anm,w: shearreinforcement
FIGURE 1 Test setup for slab segments subjected to one-way
shear in three-point loading (Adapted from Bielak et al.,32
Bielak et al.33)
2 BIELAK AND HEGGER
54
1
57
d0
21
=
00
1
planar grid C-shaped preformed grid
4 layers +2 yarns CR1
Anm = 79.6 mm2
3 layers CR1= 54.3 mm2Anm 4 layers +
2 yarns CR1Anm = 79.6 mm2
3 layers CR1= 54.3 mm2Anm
we
ft 9
0°
weft 90°
b = 200
09
weft 90°
CR1 95 mm2/m
50
[mm]
51
1
95 mm2/m
d0
8=
53
1
we
ft 9
0°
d3
71
=
5 layers +2 yarns CR1
Anm = .7 mm297
00
2
06
1
5 layers +2 yarns CR1
Anm = .7 mm297
CRP1 CRP2 CRP3
09
1
d0
21
=
reference tests
4 layers +2 yarns CR1
Anm = 79.6 mm2
3 layers CR1= 54.3 mm2Anm
weft 90°
b = 200
d0
8=
d3
71
=
5 layers +2 yarns CR1
Anm = .7 mm297
FIGURE 2 Reinforcement configurations in single span slab segments
TABLE 1 Test matrix
# tests
h = 100 h = 145 h = 200
λ = 4 λ = 5 λ = 4 λ = 5 λ = 3 λ = 4
Reference 3 3 3 3 - 1
Two planar 3 3 3 3 2 4
Four planar 3 3 3 3 - -
Two C-shaped 3 3 3 3 1 4
Four C-shaped 3 3 3 3 - -
FIGURE 3 Reinforcement variants
utilized as longitudinal and shear
reinforcement (Photos: Jan Bielak)
BIELAK AND HEGGER 3
specimens were tested with eccentric loading in two par-tial tests: First with a shear slenderness of four and subse-quently with a slenderness of three.
2.2 | Reinforcement
A symmetric epoxy-impregnated biaxial carbon-fiber grid(CFRP textile) was employed for all specimens as longitu-dinal reinforcement, with the warp direction (0�) alignedto the member axis. The planar shear reinforcement wascut from the same grid, with the weft direction (90�) ori-ented vertically, much like a shear ladder known fromsteel-reinforced concrete. Three different heights of C-shaped preformed grids were utilized as alternative shearreinforcement variant: 75, 115, or 160 mm. They consist ofthe same base material, a carbon textile with grid spacing38 mm � 38 mm, but the yarn dimensions in impregnatedhardened state vary due to the different production tech-nique: The vertical direction is less tensioned and thus lessstraight, and the yarns are wider in the corners, whichresults in a locally smaller yarn cross-sectional height(Figure 3). The outer width of the preformed elementsincluding the tails was 50 mm. In Table 2, the characteris-tics for all reinforcement variants are given. The tensileproperties of CR1 were taken from Reference 34, but theywere validated with own uniaxial tensile tests using thesame concrete as in the shear tests and employing thesetup described in Reference 35. Results of these tests aregiven in Reference 36. For one subset of tests, additionalbatch-dependent material tests from the manufacturerwere available. The properties of CRP1 and CRP2 weredetermined with yarn pullout tests (YPO) on yarns cut
from the preformed grid embedded 15 or 25 mm in twoconcrete blocks.33 All yarns failed in the free length or inthe transition zone to the concrete and not in the bend.36
The modulus of elasticity of the preformed reinforcementwas determined with a different profile height of 410 mmto allow for an undisturbed strain measurement in the freelength. These elements had the same yarn titer, samematerials, and were produced with the same technique.All reinforcement was purchased from one manufacturer(solidian GmbH) in hardened or preformed state.
The grid openings of the multilayered longitudinal rein-forcement were aligned, and each layers' weft and warpyarns were stacked without spacers other than the trans-verse yarns. The preformed grids had a slight offset in longi-tudinal direction to allow the transverse yarns of thelongitudinal reinforcement to be inserted in the grid open-ings. The longitudinal yarns of the shear reinforcementwere considered in the calculation of the longitudinal rein-forcement ratio and the effective depth up to mid-depth ofthe cross-section. In those specimens with four C-shapes asshear reinforcement, all but one layer of the longitudinalreinforcement had to be separated to allow for mutual inter-section. Cut-out yarns were arranged in an additional layeror in between the other layers (Figure 2).
2.3 | Concrete
All specimens were cast with the same concrete mixC3-HF2-165-4 given in Table 3. It has been adapted froma high-strength concrete proposed in the coordinatedresearch initiative carbon concrete composites (C3).37 Themaximum aggregate size 4 mm was adapted to the grid size
TABLE 2 Reinforcement characteristics for impregnated planar and preformed grid
Axialspacing ofyarns
Cross-sectionalarea per yarna
Cross-sectionalarea per metera
Modulus ofelasticity
Mean ultimatestress
Anchoragelength
Inner radiusof bend
(mm) (mm2) (mm2/m) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm) (mm)
Planar CFRPgrid (CR1)
(0�) 38 3.62 95 244,835 3221b (n = 204)c 79 -
(90�) 243,828 3334b (n = 218)c 113 -
PreformedCRP1
(0�) - - - -
(90�) 175,601 1969d - 8.2 (n = 26)c
PreformedCRP2
(0�) - - - -
(90�) 175,601 1969d - 8.2 (n = 26)c
PreformedCRP3
(0�) - - - -
(90�) 175,601 1969b - 4.1 (n = 13)c
afilament cross sectional area without epoxy impregnation.bfor the reference tests without shear reinforcement, the batch-dependent material strength of the reinforcement was 3624 N/mm2 for 0� and 3599 N/mm2 for
90�, tested on n = 6 yarns per direction by the manufacturer.cn = number of tests.dmean of CRP1 (n = 6) and CRP2 (n = 7).
4 BIELAK AND HEGGER
of the reinforcement. No internal or external vibration wasrequired due to the self-compacting properties of the freshconcrete. The binder compound BMK-D5-1 was developedby Deuna Zement GmbH in subproject B2 of C3.38
According to the new EN 197-5, it classifies as CEM VI(S-LL).39 The content of Portland cement is 41%; granulatedblast furnace slag (42.6%) and limestone powder (16.4%) arethe other major components. The fines content of the com-pound has been optimized with an ultrafine blast furnaceslag powder. For production, the aggregate and cementi-tious binder were mixed for 1 minute in dry state. Afteradding the water, each batch was mixed for another 3 min.
The concrete compressive strength was determinedon the day of testing of the respective experiments withcubes (150 � 150 � 150 mm3,41), cylinders (d = 150/h = 300 mm,41), or prisms (40 � 40 � 160 mm3)according to References 42,43. A database evaluation ofall batches cast at IMB of this concrete mix revealed amean conversion factor of 1.19 between compressivestrength of cubes and cylinders of age 7–60 days.36 Themodulus of elasticity Ec was determined on cylindersaccording to DIN EN 12390–1340 and the flexural tensilestrength fct,fl on prisms according to References 42,43.
3 | RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 | Failure mechanisms
The reference tests without shear reinforcement failed inshear compression or in diagonal tension or a
combination of both. These are the typical shear failuremechanism anticipated for slender rectangular one-wayelements and occur also for steel-reinforced orFRP-reinforced members.44 However, in international lit-erature, different terms and names for such failure exist.Here, the following definition applies: In the event ofshear-compression failure, the compression zone wasdiminished by growth of the shear crack, and in manycases, the constricted concrete bursts out upward at fail-ure. A secondary tension crack from the upper specimenface sometimes facilitated the burst-out (Figure 4). Alter-natively, the specimen halves rotated and slid along adiagonal shear crack, and the longitudinal reinforcementwas sheared off or the bottom concrete cover spalled,which represents the diagonal tension failure mode. Bothmechanisms are also depicted in Figure 5. Previous testswith the same reinforcement but a smaller reinforcementratio showed similar failure mechanisms.45 The forma-tion of a critical shear crack leads usually to a suddenshear failure of the slab segments. In most cases, thiscrack was formed from existing flexural shear cracks,which rapidly extended into the compression zone andsimultaneously along the longitudinal reinforcement asdowel crack. This dowel crack splat off the bottom con-crete cover. In the case of multilayered reinforcement,often the dowel crack occurred in the uppermost layerand a cantilevering dowel block containing the longitudi-nal reinforcement was formed. Generally, the cracks ranthrough the aggregate grains.
All shear-reinforced specimens also failed in shear.The flexural reinforcement remained intact up to failureand distinct shear cracks which ran through the aggre-gate were present. This failure manifested in differentpatterns, that is, shear compression failure through blow-
TABLE 3 Composition of C3-HF2-165-4
Ingredient
Density Content
(kg/m3) (kg/m3)
Cementitious binder compound BMK-D5-1 CEM VI (S-LL)
2962 707
Fine quartz sand F38 S 2650 294
Quartz sand 0.1–0.5 mm 2630 243.2
Quartz sand 0.5–1.0 mm 2630 201.4
Quartz sand 1.0–2.0 mm 2630 148.9
Quartz fine gravel 2.0–4.0 mm 2630 593.5
Superplasticizer (polycarboxylatether-basis) MC-VP-16-0205-02
1070 15a
Water 1000 165
aDepending on ambient temperature and humidity at the day of casting, the
content of superplasticizer has been reduced to prevent aggregatesegregation. Batches for specimen heights 100 and 145 mm had reductionsbetween 0% and 10%. All batches for 200 mm specimen height had 30%–40%reduction, as the supplier of the quartz sand and gravel (aggregate sizes 0.1–4 mm) changed and a new batch of the superplasticizer was used.
(a)
(b)
d0
8=
failure
97% Fmax
4 = 0.34%= l
secondary crackburst-out
FIGURE 4 Failure of reference specimen SH-3PT-3C-4C-84-V1
without shear reinforcement: (a) last image prior to failure and
(b) after failure (Adapted from Bielak36)
BIELAK AND HEGGER 5
up of the compression zone or diagonal tension failurewith a linear shear crack and rotation and sliding of thespecimen halves along this crack line (Figure 5). Mostinteresting is the role of the shear reinforcement and towhat extent it contributed to shear resistance. After itscontribution failed, the specimens reacted similar to non-shear-reinforced members in their post peak-load behav-ior. In some specimens, the longitudinal reinforcementwas sheared off in the aftermath of shear failure.
28 of 30 specimens with planar shear reinforcementhad vertical splitting cracks in the plane of shear reinforce-ment at failure (Figure 6). These cracks split either thecompression zone above the critical shear crack (Figure 6a) or could be observed in the lower specimen part belowthe shear crack (Figure 6b). Such cracks can clearly beattributed to bond action of this type of reinforcement.46,47
Many specimens failed suddenly and without residualcapacity. The vertical yarns of the planar grid remainedintact and were pulled out from the split concrete. This isplausible with regard to the anchorage length required torupture the yarns (Table 2). Even in optimal conditions forthe specimens with 200 mm height and shear reinforce-ment height of 190 mm (Figure 2), when the shear crackcrosses a vertical reinforcement element in mid-depth, ananchorage length of merely 95 mm on either side is avail-able. This is below the extrapolated value of 113 mm forthe weft direction of the grid in the same concrete. In somespecimens, the rotation along the shear crack and the sud-den shift at collapse sheared off the vertical yarns, but thiswas not the initial cause of failure.
From this observation, first conclusions on the role ofplanar vertical reinforcement can be drawn:
• The shear reinforcement transfers vertical loads, as itsability to split the concrete indicates.
• The shear reinforcement cannot be fully activated upto its rupture strain.
• The suddenness of failure and the noises that occurredduring testing indicate toward a coincidence of ulti-mate resistance with the formation of splitting cracksand consequently the loss of anchorage of verticalyarns.
The preformed C-shaped reinforcement elementsbehaved to some extent differently from the planar grids,and a variation of failure mechanisms could be observeddepending on the member height and reinforcementratio (Figure 7). In the smaller slab segments withh = 100 mm, the vertical yarns remained predominantlyintact (Figure 7a). Only for two specimens with two verti-cal C-legs, a rupture in the bend could be identified afterfailure. Whether this rupture occurred as primary or sec-ondary failure could not be distinguished. A similarbehavior was observed for specimens with h = 145 mm:Again, sporadic ruptures in the bend were identified afterfailure. Extensive cracking in the plane of the verticalpart of the C in combination with splitting cracks frombond and dowel action in the layer of longitudinal rein-forcement enabled a lateral pullout of the undamaged C-shapes at failure for 100 and 145 mm high specimens(Figure 7b). Essentially, this was also an anchorage fail-ure like for the planar grids, at least after surpassing ulti-mate load. Closing the C-shapes in a stirrup or helix typewould probably have not increased ultimate resistancefor the own specimens, due to the following reason: Thelateral pull-out in the compression zone occurred in
compression zone blow-up
rotationpart Brotation
part A
rotation
slidingspallingof cover
(a)
(b)
FIGURE 5 Failure kinematics for shear-reinforced specimens
after failure of contribution of shear reinforcement: (a) shear
compression failure and (b) diagonal tension failure (Reproduced
from Bielak36)
FIGURE 6 Failure mechanism for members with planar shear
reinforcement: (a) vertical splitting cracks in compression zone
indicating anchorage failure of shear reinforcement and (b) intact
pulled-out vertical shear reinforcement formerly crossing the shear
crack and vertical splitting crack in direction of the tension zone
(Adapted from Bielak36)
6 BIELAK AND HEGGER
the horizontal branch of the shear crack. A shear-compression failure with blow-up of the compressionzone or a diagonal tension failure with displacementalong the shear crack could not have been preventedbecause the compression zone is situated above the hori-zontal leg of the shear reinforcement for this memberheight. Choosing a smaller concrete cover for the stirrupsto better confine the compression zone is no option, as aminimum cover for anchorage is required. The ownobservations are quite similar to those in References48,49 where a closed stirrup/helix was utilized. The crackpattern reported there was quite similar to the owndespite the different shear reinforcement form, and theauthors report also “shear-compression crushing failure.”
In contrast to the smaller heights, all members withh = 200 mm showed rupture in the bend portion of thevertical C-shapes after failure (Figure 7c,d). This rupturemight partially be explained by the smaller bend radiusof the reinforcement CRP3, probably a result from therelative position of the longitudinal yarns to the bend.
Both types of shear reinforcement, planar and C-shaped, were symmetric grids and contained longitudinalyarns. These yarns also crossed the shear crack. Theirweak connection to the vertical yarns by resin, and thepolypropylene knitting thread was simply sheared off, aswas observed in many specimens. Neither the verticalnor the longitudinal yarns were damaged by this process.The vertical bond cracks in the plane of the shear rein-forcement allowed for a nearly free rotation of theseyarns and consequently also of the specimen halves alongthe shear crack. The yarns might play a significant role in
the formation of the vertical splitting cracks. Their dowe-lling action, which is activated by potential sliding of theshear crack faces, in combination with the wedge-shapeof the yarns also induces splitting stress in the concrete.Whether their presence is detrimental or beneficial forshear resistance remains an open question, as all speci-mens were equipped with the same symmetric reinforce-ment. The longitudinal yarns certainly lower theundisturbed area of concrete in lateral specimen direc-tion, which resists the splitting stresses.
Table 4 lists the results of all reference tests and therespective concrete strength at the day of testing. Allresults for the shear-reinforced specimens are given inTable 5. The nomenclature denotes the type of test (SH:shear test, 3PT: three-point loading), amount, and type oflongitudinal reinforcement (3C/4,5C/5,4C: number oflayers and C for carbon), amount and type of shear rein-forcement (2I/2C/4I/4C: number and shape of shearreinforcement elements, I for planar, C for C-shaped),total specimen length in centimeter, and number of repe-tition (V1–V3). The crack patterns and load-deflectioncurves of each test can be found in Reference 36.
3.2 | Load-deflection behavior
Between each of the three repetitions per configuration,only small scatter was observed. Despite their differentanchorage mechanism, the two shear reinforcementtypes led to similar load-deflection behavior and compa-rable ultimate loads (Figure 8). Members with C-shaped
)b()a(
)d()c(
secondary kink
yarns inbend intact
lateral pullout
rupturein bend
rupturein bend
secondary kinks
h = 100 mmSH-3PT-3C-2C-100-V2
h = 145 mmSH-3PT-4,5C-2C-140-V1
h = 200 mmSH-3PT-5,4C-2C-160-V2
h = 200 mmSH-3PT-5,4C-2C-230-V1a
FIGURE 7 Failure mechanisms for
members with C-shaped reinforcement: (a) and
(b) lateral pullout of intact yarns after shear-
compression failure; (c) and (d) rupture of yarns
in the bend at failure (Reproduced from
Bielak36)
BIELAK AND HEGGER 7
TABLE
4Overviewof
experimen
talresultsforreference
testswithou
tshearreinforcem
ent
Specim
enno
Lb
hd
a/d
M/
(V�d)
ρ lEnm,l
f nm,l
Ec
f c,cyl
f c,cu
f c,pr
f ct,fl
Fail.
Vu
Vu,exp
(-)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(-)
(-)
(%)
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(-)
(kN)
(kN)
SH-3PT
-3C-84-V1
639
201
9979
4.03
4.04
0.34
244,835
3624
39,814
110.5
119.1
116.0
10.1
S28.5
28.5
SH-3PT
-3C-84-V2
640
200
100
774.14
4.14
0.35
244,835
3624
39,814
110.5
119.1
116.0
10.1
S23.8
23.9
SH-3PT
-3C-84-V3
640
200
100
774.14
4.14
0.35
244,835
3624
39,814
110.5
119.1
116.0
10.1
S25.8
25.8
SH-3PT
-3C-100-V1
800
200
100
785.10
5.11
0.35
244,835
3624
39,814
110.5
119.1
116.0
10.1
S22.6
22.6
SH-3PT
-3C-100-V2
800
200
100
795.05
5.06
0.34
244,835
3624
39,814
110.5
119.1
116.0
10.1
S25.1
25.2
SH-3PT
-3C-100-V3
800
200
101
804.98
4.99
0.34
244,835
3624
39,814
110.5
119.1
116.0
10.1
S26.9
26.9
SH-3PT
-4,5C-
116-V1
960
201
146
116
4.14
4.15
0.34
244,835
3624
39,814
110.5
119.1
116.0
10.1
S30.5
30.6
SH-3PT
-4,5C-
116-V2
960
200
146
117
4.12
4.13
0.34
244,835
3624
39,814
110.5
119.1
116.0
10.1
S30.5
30.6
SH-3PT
-4,5C-
116-V3
960
201
145
115
4.17
4.18
0.35
244,835
3624
39,814
110.5
119.1
116.0
10.1
S27.3
27.3
SH-3PT
-4,5C-
140-V1
1200
200
146
117
5.13
5.15
0.34
244,835
3624
41,451
107.8
126.1
115.2
11.5
S28.6
28.7
SH-3PT
-4,5C-
140-V2
1198
200
147
119
5.03
5.05
0.33
244,835
3624
41,451
107.8
126.1
115.2
11.5
S30.2
30.3
SH-3PT
-4,5C-
140-V3
1200
200
147
118
5.09
5.11
0.34
244,835
3624
41,451
107.8
126.1
115.2
11.5
S26.6
26.7
SH-3PT
-5,4C-
160-V1
1399
201
200
173
4.04
4.06
0.28
244,835
3221
40,715
106.6
126.9
107.2
10.6
S27.7
27.9
8 BIELAK AND HEGGER
TABLE
5Overviewof
experimen
talresultsof
shear-reinforced
specim
ens
Specim
enno.
Lb
hd
a/d
M/(V�d)
ρ lEnm,l
f nm,l
TW
ρ nm,w
f nm,w
Enm,w
Ec
f c,cyl
f c,cu
f c,pr
f ct,fl
Fail.
Vu
Vu,exp
(-)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(-)
(-)
(%)
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(-)
(%)
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(-)
(kN)
(kNm)
SH-3PT
-3C-2I-84-V1
640
201
9976
4.18
4.19
0.40
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
42,891
106.5
124.6
116.5
11.2
A/S
30.7
30.7
SH-3PT
-3C-2I-84-V2
639
200
101
784.07
4.07
0.39
244,835
3221
I0.10
3334
243,828
42,891
106.5
124.6
116.5
11.2
A/S
29.7
29.8
SH-3PT
-3C-2I-84-V3
639
201
102
764.22
4.22
0.40
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
42,891
106.5
124.6
116.5
11.2
A/S
30.6
30.7
SH-3PT
-3C-2I-100-V1
800
201
100
805.03
5.04
0.38
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
42,891
106.5
124.6
120.0
11.6
A/S
29.9
30.0
SH-3PT
-3C-2I-100-V2
798
200
100
775.18
5.19
0.40
244,835
3221
I0.10
3334
243,828
42,891
106.5
124.6
120.0
11.6
A/S
28.1
28.2
SH-3PT
-3C-2I-100-V3
799
201
100
805.01
5.02
0.38
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
42,891
106.5
124.6
120.0
11.6
A/S
27.5
27.6
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2I-116-V1
959
201
145
117
4.10
4.11
0.37
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
45,380
107.5
121.5
126.9
12.4
A/S
40.7
40.7
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2I-116-V2
959
201
147
118
4.05
4.05
0.37
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
45,380
107.5
121.5
126.9
12.4
A/S
44.7
44.8
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2I-116-V3
958
201
147
117
4.07
4.08
0.37
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
45,380
107.5
121.5
126.9
12.4
S41.3
41.4
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2I-140-V1
1201
201
144
117
5.14
5.15
0.37
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
42,891
106.5
124.6
113.5
9.8
A/S
43.3
43.4
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2I-140-V2
1200
201
144
114
5.25
5.27
0.38
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
42,891
106.5
124.6
113.5
9.8
A/S
40.0
40.1
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2I-140-V3
1199
201
144
111
5.38
5.40
0.39
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
42,891
106.5
124.6
113.5
9.8
A/S
44.0
44.1
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4I-140-V1
1197
201
146
121
4.96
4.97
0.39
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
45,380
122.1
-126.7
12.5
A/S
58.7
58.8
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4I-140-V2
1200
202
144
118
5.09
5.10
0.40
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
45,380
122.1
-126.7
12.5
A/S
60.8
60.8
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4I-140-V3
1200
200
145
117
5.13
5.14
0.40
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
45,380
122.1
-126.7
12.5
A/S
58.3
58.4
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4I-116-V1
960
201
147
118
4.06
4.07
0.40
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
42,327
104.9
123.5
119.8
10.6
A/S
67.4
67.5
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4I-116-V2
961
200
147
118
4.08
4.09
0.40
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
42,327
104.9
123.5
119.8
10.6
A/S
67.5
67.6
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4I-116-V3
957
201
146
119
4.01
4.01
0.39
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
42,327
104.9
123.5
119.8
10.6
A/S
63.0
63.0
SH-3PT
-3C-4I-100-V1
800
200
101
705.67
5.68
0.49
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
42,327
104.9
123.5
119.8
11.7
A/S
32.8
32.8
SH-3PT
-3C-4I-100-V2
800
200
101
705.72
5.73
0.49
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
42,327
104.9
123.5
119.8
11.7
A/S
35.6
35.6
SH-3PT
-3C-4I-100-V3
800
200
100
755.31
5.32
0.46
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
42,327
104.9
123.5
119.8
11.7
A/S
39.1
39.1
SH-3PT
-3C-4I-84-V1
640
201
100
744.35
4.35
0.46
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
42,327
104.9
123.5
113.5
10.7
A/S
37.3
37.3
SH-3PT
-3C-4I-84-V2
640
200
102
704.55
4.55
0.49
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
42,327
104.9
123.5
113.5
10.7
A/S
36.1
36.1
SH-3PT
-3C-4I-84-V3
642
201
101
734.40
4.41
0.47
244,835
3221
I0.19
3334
243,828
42,327
104.9
123.5
113.5
10.7
A/S
34.6
34.7
SH-3PT
-3C-2C-84-V1
640
200
100
774.15
4.15
0.45
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
43,978
107.5
115.6
107.5
20.5
S28.9
29.0
SH-3PT
-3C-2C-84-V2
642
200
100
784.10
4.11
0.44
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
43,978
107.5
115.6
107.5
20.5
S/RV
30.2
30.2
SH-3PT
-3C-2C-84-V3
642
200
102
764.21
4.21
0.45
244,835
3221
C0.09
1969
175,601
43,978
107.5
115.6
107.5
20.5
S28.2
28.2
SH-3PT
-3C-2C-100-V1
800
200
101
824.87
4.88
0.42
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
43,978
107.5
115.6
107.5
13.4
S/A
28.2
28.3
SH-3PT
-3C-2C-100-V2
800
200
100
795.04
5.05
0.43
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
43,978
107.5
115.6
107.5
13.4
S/A
27.5
27.5
SH-3PT
-3C-2C-100-V3
800
201
100
765.25
5.26
0.45
244,835
3221
C0.09
1969
175,601
43,978
107.5
115.6
107.5
13.4
S/A/R
V27.2
27.2
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2C-116-V
1959
200
148
120
3.99
4.00
0.39
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
43,978
107.5
115.6
107.5
13.4
S/A
42.5
42.6
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2C-116-V
2960
200
145
119
4.04
4.05
0.40
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
43,978
107.5
115.6
107.5
13.4
S/A
38.8
38.9
(Con
tinue
s)
BIELAK AND HEGGER 9
TABLE
5(Con
tinued)
Specim
enno.
Lb
hd
a/d
M/(V�d)
ρ lEnm,l
f nm,l
TW
ρ nm,w
f nm,w
Enm,w
Ec
f c,cyl
f c,cu
f c,pr
f ct,fl
Fail.
Vu
Vu,exp
(-)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
(-)
(-)
(%)
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(-)
(%)
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(N/m
m2 )
(-)
(kN)
(kNm)
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2C-116-V
3960
200
146
120
4.00
4.00
0.39
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
43,978
107.5
115.6
107.5
13.4
S/RV
43.7
43.8
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2C-140-V
11200
201
145
118
5.07
5.09
0.40
244,835
3221
C0.09
1969
175,601
41,894
110.0
124.5
112.1
10.2
S/A
43.6
43.7
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2C-140-V
21195
201
146
118
5.03
5.05
0.40
244,835
3221
C0.09
1969
175,601
41,894
110.0
124.5
108.3
8.6
S/RV
43.8
43.9
SH-3PT
-4,5C-2C-140-V
31200
200
146
115
5.21
5.22
0.41
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
41,894
110.0
124.5
108.3
8.6
S/A
45.1
45.2
SH-3PT
-3C-4C-84-V1
640
200
100
764.17
4.17
0.54
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
41,894
110.0
124.5
112.1
10.2
S/A
43.9
43.9
SH-3PT
-3C-4C-84-V2
640
200
101
764.19
4.20
0.55
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
41,894
110.0
124.5
112.1
10.2
S/A
41.5
41.6
SH-3PT
-3C-4C-84-V3
638
201
100
764.20
4.20
0.55
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
41,894
110.0
124.5
112.1
10.2
S/A
43.4
43.5
SH-3PT
-3C-4C-100-V1
800
200
100
804.98
4.98
0.52
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
41,894
110.0
124.5
108.3
8.6
S/A
40.4
40.4
SH-3PT
-3C-4C-100-V2
800
200
101
785.14
5.14
0.53
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
41,894
110.0
124.5
119.3
9.3
S/A
38.9
38.9
SH-3PT
-3C-4C-100-V3
800
200
101
765.23
5.24
0.54
24,4835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
41,894
110.0
124.5
119.3
9.3
S/A
36.9
37.0
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4C-116-V
1960
200
145
115
4.16
4.17
0.47
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
42,435
107.0
125.0
110.6
7.7
S/A
60.3
60.3
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4C-116-V
2960
200
144
114
4.21
4.21
0.48
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
42,435
107.0
125.0
110.6
7.7
S/A
57.7
57.7
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4C-116-V
3960
201
147
115
4.19
4.19
0.47
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
42,435
107.0
125.0
110.6
7.7
S/A
63.1
63.2
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4C-140-V
11200
201
146
116
5.16
5.18
0.47
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
42,435
107.0
125.0
110.6
7.7
S/A
54.5
54.6
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4C-140-V
21200
201
145
118
5.09
5.10
0.46
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
42,435
107.0
125.0
110.6
7.7
S/A
56.5
56.6
SH-3PT
-4,5C-4C-140-V
31200
201
146
119
5.04
5.05
0.45
244,835
3221
C0.19
1969
175,601
42,435
107.0
125.0
110.6
7.7
S/A
59.2
59.2
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2C-160-V
11401
200
195
165
4.24
4.25
0.34
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
40,137
106.2
126.4
105.9
11.7
RV
63.0
63.2
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2C-160-V
21401
201
199
170
4.13
4.14
0.33
244,835
3221
C0.09
1969
175,601
40,137
106.2
126.4
105.9
11.7
RV
62.5
62.7
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2C-160-V
31400
200
197
168
4.17
4.18
0.33
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
40,137
106.2
126.4
105.9
11.7
RV
64.4
64.6
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2I-160-V1
1400
200
200
171
4.10
4.11
0.31
244,835
3221
I0.10
3334
243,828
40,715
106.6
126.9
107.2
11.3
A58.8
59.0
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2I-160-V2
1400
200
201
170
4.12
4.13
0.31
244,835
3221
I0.10
3334
243,828
40,715
106.6
126.9
107.2
11.3
A59.0
59.1
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2I-230-V1a
2097
201
201
174
4.02
4.03
0.30
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
43,362
101.7
113.9
112.3
12.6
A59.3
59.8
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2I-230-V2a
2100
201
202
171
4.09
4.10
0.30
244,835
3221
I0.09
3334
243,828
43,362
101.7
113.9
112.3
12.6
A56.8
57.3
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2C-230-V
1a2100
200
200
169
4.14
4.15
0.31
244,835
3221
C0.10
1969
175,601
43,362
101.7
113.9
112.3
12.6
RV
55.8
56.3
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2I-230-V1b
1403
200
200
172
3.06
3.06
0.31
244,835
3221
I0.10
3334
243,828
43,362
101.7
113.9
112.3
12.6
A62.7
63.0
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2I-230-V2b
1400
200
200
169
3.11
3.11
0.33
244,835
3221
I0.10
3334
243,828
43,362
101.7
113.9
112.3
12.6
A62.0
62.3
SH-3PT
-5,4C-2C-230-V
1b1401
201
200
170
3.09
3.09
0.33
244,835
3221
C0.09
1969
175,601
43,362
101.7
113.9
112.3
12.6
RV
62.5
62.8
10 BIELAK AND HEGGER
shear reinforcement exhibited slightly stiffer behavior atlower load levels, which can be easily explained with thenumber of additional longitudinal yarns provided bythe shear reinforcement: In the lower leg of the C, twoextra yarns per element were situated in the tension zoneclose to the concrete surface; for the planar reinforce-ment, there was only one yarn above the last layer of lon-gitudinal reinforcement (see Figure 2). This is, in next tovariations of effective depth d, one reason for the slightlydifferent geometrical reinforcement ratios ρl denoted inFigure 8. Two tests with four-legged C-shaped shear rein-forcement (4C-116-V1 and 4C-116-V3) in Figure 8 experi-enced a loss of stiffness at approximately 40 kN shearload. This can be attributed to connecting longitudinalcracks, which formed at the level of the overlapping hori-zontal legs of the C-profiles. Their coverage of concretewas large, and the remainder of concrete was no longer
able to transmit the vertical splitting stresses. Hence, thebottommost layer of longitudinal reinforcement was nolonger bonded to the specimen, which explains well tothe loss of stiffness. The identically reinforced specimen4C-116-V3 had no connecting longitudinal cracks, andthus, no decline of stiffness of the same magnitude wasobserved.
All failure types (anchorage failure, shear-compressionfailure, rupture of yarns) manifest similarly in the load-deflection curves as sudden and drops of load, oftencatastrophic without any residual capacity. This is clearlyvisible in the diagrams in Figure 9, where the specimensin Figure 9e failed through anchorage of the vertical grids,while in Figure 9f, the C-shaped reinforcement rupturedin the bend. The load deflection curve alone does notreveal which type of failure occurred.
3.3 | Influence of arch action and shearslenderness
The results of the reference tests without shear reinforce-ment are compared in Figure 9 to a previous test seriesfrom Reference 45 by their shear stress τ = Vu/(b�d) andshear slenderness ratio a/d excluding self-weight. Thenormalized form compensates variations in effectivedepth. All specimens were saw-cut after testing, and thereal effective depth of each yarn was measured. The valued represents the geometrical centroid of all yarns. Speci-mens from Reference 45, which failed in flexure werealso included in the Figure 9a, as the shear resistance atflexural failure represents at least a lower boundary forthe actual resistance. The following observations resultfrom a first comparison:
• Despite the same longitudinal reinforcement ratio andsimilar concrete strength, members with larger effec-tive depth fail at smaller shear stress. This well-knownsize effect is present for both series.
• The influence of shear slenderness on shear resistanceis clearly recognizable. The decline between a/d = 4and 5 almost vanishes for a/d = 5 and 6. The testswere performed deliberately at large shear slendernessto minimize the influence of arching action. The physi-cal explanation for the influence of shear slendernesson shear resistance is well known from steel-reinforcedconcrete: The larger moment due to larger a leads tolarger strain in the longitudinal reinforcement andthus to larger flexural-shear crack openings. The largerthe crack opening, the smaller the micro-interlock ofthe crack surfaces. However, the reduction effectdeclines when a certain threshold of crack opening issurpassed. Furthermore, the plane of strain (in the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 5 10 15 20
sh
ea
rfo
rceV
[kN
]
def n at midlectio -span w [mm]
2I-116-V1
2I-116-V2
2I-116-V3
2C-116-V1
2C-116-V2
2C-116-V3
(a)
a/d≈ 4
l ≈ 0.37 (planar)%
nm,w = 0. ‰95l ≈ 0.39 (C-shape)%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 5 10 15 20
sh
ea
rfo
rceV
[kN
]
def n at midlectio -span w [mm]
4I-116-V1
4I-116-V2
4I-116-V3
4C-116-V1
4C-116-V2
4C-116-V3
(b)
a/d≈ 4.1
l ≈ 0.40 (planar)%
nm,w = . ‰1 90l ≈ 0.47 (C-shape)%
connecting longitudinalcracks at level of C-legs
FIGURE 8 Shear force–deflection behavior of specimens with
145 mm height and different shear reinforcement types and
reinforcement ratios
BIELAK AND HEGGER 11
idealized Euler-Bernoulli beam) has to rotate furtherat higher moment levels, which reduces the depth ofthe uncracked compression zone and its contributionto shear resistance.
• Specimens with identical configuration exhibit surpris-ingly large scatter at ultimate load. This is especiallythe case for the 2016 series with d = 120 mm. After theshear crack progressed through the compression zone,the three-axial stress state below the load introductionconfines the concrete and allows for redistribution ofload toward a tied arch. The white boxes/circles repre-sent the total failure load, while the actual failure loadhas been corrected to the lower level where the initialshear crack progression into the compression zoneoccurred. The present series (2019) features smallerscatter.
The effect of arching action is also present in theshear-reinforced members. Two specimens withthe smallest shear slenderness λ = 3, one with planar andone with C-shaped shear reinforcement, failed at signifi-cantly larger ultimate loads than their identicallyreinforced companion tests with λ = 4 (Figure 10). Adrop or plateau can be identified at the same load levelwhere the specimens with λ = 4 failed. The DIC analysisreveals that the dowel and bond cracks were fully con-nected and reached almost to the support in the respec-tive load stages (Figure 10a,c). The last inclined cracks inthe vicinity of the support formed at this stage, diagonaltension cracks opened, and the shear crack visibly prog-ressed toward the compression zone (Figure 10b,d). Con-sequently, the increase of 20% and 27% after the plateaucan be attributed to tied arch action. The direct compari-son of 2I-230-V1b and -V2b reveals that the activation ofthis mechanism is not guaranteed: In 2I-230-V1b(Figure 10e), the progression of the shear crack to thecompression zone directly led to failure. Up to this point,
both specimens show nearly identical load-deflectionbehavior. This tied arch action was observed for none ofthe specimens with a/d ≥ 4, and it will therefore not beconsidered in the following evaluations, which focus onbeam shear action rather than strut-and-tie action.
The comparison of all shear-reinforced tests inFigure 11 reveals only a slight reduction of shear resis-tance for increasing shear slenderness for both types ofshear reinforcement. The small scatter per configurationand the similar behavior regarding the influence of a/dfor both reinforcement types apparent.
3.4 | Absolute and relative shearstrength
The observation that an increase of shear reinforcementratio leads to an increase in shear resistance might betrivial but is not granted. Depending on the shear trans-fer mechanism of the shear reinforcement, a prematurefailure might occur. All results and their respective ref-erence tests are compared in Figure 12. Self-weight isnot included. The dashed lines are linear trendsobtained with the least-squares method. The increase ofshear resistance through shear reinforcement is evident:Doubling the shear reinforcement approximatelydoubles its total contribution to shear resistance. Onlymembers with 80 mm effective depth and two C-shapedgrids slightly deviate from this rule. A part of theincrease of resistance can be attributed to the additionallongitudinal yarns in the tension zone provided by theshear reinforcement. This is more relevant for thesmaller height, where the relative increase in reinforce-ment ratio is larger.
The larger the effective depth, the higher the totalincrease. However, in normalized form (τ = Vu,exp/(b�d)),all trend lines become nearly parallel, and the shear
FIGURE 9 Influence of
shear slenderness on ultimate
shear stress: (a) 2016 series
from45 and (b) present series
(from 2019) with higher
longitudinal reinforcement ratio
(Reproduced from Bielak36)
12 BIELAK AND HEGGER
stress per configuration varies in a narrow band for theshear-reinforced members (Figure 13). A size effect isonly noticeable for the reference tests. The slightly largerultimate resistance of the planar members with fourlayers of shear reinforcement is compensated by asmaller effective depth for the C-shaped elements. Inother words, the contribution of total resistance per verti-cal yarn crossing the shear crack is similar irrespective tothe type of anchorage. With regard to the different failure
mechanisms of the C-shaped reinforcement, this is mostremarkable. Yet both types of reinforcement had thesame cross-section, spacing, and material and led to simi-lar crack patterns and mostly similar load-deflectionbehavior.
It could be a coincidence that the smaller ultimateresistance of the C-shaped profiles, and their smallermodulus of elasticity is compensated by their betteranchorage. Note that the possible contribution of shear
2I-230-V2b= 62.0 kNV
2C-230-V1b= 62.5 kNV
)c()a(
)d()b(= 63.0 kNV = 60.7 kNV
opening ofcrack
new (last)crack
new (last)crack
progressionin compressionzone
significantopening
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0�1 [%]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
2I-160-V1
2I-160-V2
2I-230-V1a
2I-230-V2a
2I-230-V1b
2I-230-V2b
(e)
(a)(b)
arch action+ kN12.2(+ %)20
� = 3.1
� = 4.1� = 4.1
w [mm]
shear
forc
eV
[kN
]
deflection at load introduction
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
2C-160-V1
2C-160-V2
2C-160-V3
2C-230-V1a
2C-230-V1b
(f)
(c)
(d)
arch action+17.1 kN(+ %)27
deflection at load introduction
� = 3.1
� = 4.2
� = 4.2
w [mm]shear
forc
eV
[kN
]
FIGURE 10 Influence of
arch action for shear-reinforced
specimens of height 200 mm
with λ ≈ 3 and comparison to
similar specimens with larger
shear slenderness λ ≈ 4
(Reproduced from Bielak36)
0
15
30
45
60
75
3 4 5 6
sh
ea
r fo
rceV
u[k
N]
shear slenderness a/d [-]
2 I - mm= 80d 2 I - mm= 120d
4 I - mm= 80d 4 I - mm= 120d
2 I - mm= 17d 3
planar grid
(a)
0
15
45
60
75
3 4 5 6
shear slenderness a/d [-]
2 C - mm= 80d 2 C - mm= 120d
4 C - mm= 80d 4 C - mm= 120d
2 C - mm= 17d 3
30
C-shaped preformed grid
sh
ea
r fo
rceV
u[k
N]
(b)
FIGURE 11 Influence of
shear slenderness on shear
resistance of shear-reinforced
single span slab segments:
(a) with planar shear
reinforcement (Adapted from
Bielak et al.32) and (b) with C-
shaped reinforcement
(Reproduced from Bielak36)
BIELAK AND HEGGER 13
reinforcement at a given shear crack opening depends ontwo factors: The elastic stiffness of the free yarn as wellas the stiffness of the anchorage that manifests in theamount of slip required to transfer load into the yarn.The vertical yarns of the planar grid feature larger ulti-mate strength, a larger modulus of elasticity, and astraighter shape, but they cannot be fully activated due topremature bond failure. Although they reach up to0–5 mm to the concrete surfaces, they are not fullyanchored in the concrete cover. In contrast, the C-shapedprofiles exhibit a stiffer anchorage response due to the90� leg with 50 mm leg length.
A different explanation to the similar behavior is thatthe same amount of vertical shear reinforcement inde-pendent of its anchorage with a similar modulus of elas-ticity has the same effect on shear crack width control.
This would lead to a constant activation of aggregateinterlock along the shear crack and a sustained contribu-tion of dowel action. The fan-shaped diagonal crack pat-tern in Figure 10 is an indicator of the ability of the zonebelow each diagonal crack to still transfer vertical loads,as new cracks are able to form. In this regard, the distrib-uted nature of the textile grids in planar or in C-shape isbeneficial, as they constantly bridge the shear crack. Tobetter exploit the reinforcement in smaller members, thespacing of vertical yarns has to be reduced so that moreyarns cross and sew the shear crack. In essence, the gridspacing has to be adapted to the member size.
4 | CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, the results from an experimental investiga-tion of the one-way shear capacity of slab segments with-out and with shear reinforcement were presented. Thefollowing conclusions can be drawn:
• The analysis of cracking and failure mechanisms fordifferent reinforcement configurations revealed thatthin slab segments with FRP textile reinforcement aresubject to similar shear failure mechanisms as steel-reinforced concrete and FRP rebar-reinforced concrete.
• FRP textile reinforcement behaves similar to FRP rebarreinforcement under one-way shear load. The distinc-tion between the two often found in literature is artifi-cial, as the transition between thin and regular-sizedslabs is actually smooth.
FIGURE 12 Relationship of shear resistance and
reinforcement ratio for different reinforcement types and member
heights: (a) planar reinforcement and (b) C-shaped reinforcement
(Reproduced from Bielak36)
FIGURE 13 Comparison of relative shear strength (shear
stress) for different reinforcement configurations and member
heights
14 BIELAK AND HEGGER
• For members without shear reinforcement, the sizeeffect and the shear slenderness could be identified asmajor influencing parameters that need to be consid-ered for prediction of shear resistance.
• For some specimens with shear slenderness betweenfour and five, an additional arching action increasedultimate shear resistance after initial shear failure.Whether this increase occurs or not depends on thecritical shear crack path and the extent of local con-finement of the concrete at load application. Due to itsarbitrary nature, it should not be accounted for indesign.
• The primary failure mechanism of all elements withplanar reinforcement was anchorage failure of verticalreinforcement. Subsequently, the specimens failed inshear compression. The C-shaped preformed elementswere ruptured only for the largest height of 200 mm.In the other tests, a combination of anchorage andshear compression failure was observed. Hence, theanchorage behavior has to be considered in shearmodels for thin slabs to account for this failure mode.
• The size effect loses absolute relevance for the shear-reinforced members, as the loss of relative shearstrength is compensated by a better anchorage of verti-cal reinforcement elements for higher specimens.
• Slab segments in three-point loading with a heightbetween 100 mm and 200 mm equipped with planar orC-shaped FRP textile shear reinforcement carry higherultimate loads than the reference tests without shearreinforcement. Both types of shear reinforcement aresuitable for enhancing shear resistance of thin slabs,and the results are surprisingly similar despite the dif-ferent anchorage type.
This paper focused on the one-way shear behavior ofsingle span members with concentrated loads. It is knownfrom steel-reinforced concrete that the shear resistance ofcontinuous systems differs. Consequently, an adapted testsetup for investigation of such members will be presentedin a subsequent paper. A shear model capable of an accu-rate prediction of thin slabs without and with shear rein-forcement will also be proposed in upcoming articles.Furthermore, the effect of distributed loading on the shearresistance as well as cyclic or sustained loading has to beinvestigated in future research.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThis research was funded by German Federal Ministry ofEducation and Research (BMBF), grant number03ZZ0380. This funding is gratefully acknowledged.
NOTATIONa distance of load axis to support (general)
a1, a2 distance of load axis to left/right supportanm,w area of shear reinforcement per unit lengthb specimen widthd effective depthh specimen heightfnm,l tensile strength of longitudinal reinforcementfnm,w strength of the shear reinforcement
(straight part)fc,cyl compressive strength of concrete (cylinder d/
h = 150/300)fc,cu compressive strength of concrete (cube a = 150)fc,pr compressive strength of concrete (prism halve
160 � 40 � 40)fc,fl flexural tensile strength of concrete
(prism 160 � 40 � 40)fail. failure (S: shear, i.e., diagonal tension/shear com-
pression; A: anchorage failure of vertical rein-forcement; RV: rupture of vertical reinforcement)
Ec modulus of elasticity of concreteEnm,l modulus of elasticity of longitudinal
reinforcementEnm,w modulus of elasticity of nonmetallic shear
reinforcementL span lengthLtot total specimen lengthM/(V�d)
ratio of maximum moment to shear force in dis-tance d to load introduction including self-weight
TW type of shear reinforcement (I: planar grid; C:preformed C-shaped grid)
V shear forceVu ultimate shear force without self-weightVu,exp ultimate shear force including self-weight in
distance d to load introductionλ shear slendernessρl geometrical longitudinal reinforcement ratioρnm,w geometric shear reinforcement ratio (anm,w/b)τ shear stress
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONJan Bielak: Conceptualization (equal), formal analysis,investigation, methodology, visualization, writing—original draft preparation; Josef Hegger: conceptualiza-tion (equal), funding acquisition, project administration,supervision, resources, writing—review and editing.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENTThe data that support the findings of this study are availablefrom the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
ORCIDJan Bielak https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3219-655XJosef Hegger https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3066-5006
BIELAK AND HEGGER 15
REFERENCES1. Kaszubska M, Kotynia R, Barros JAO, Baghi H. Shear behavior
of concrete beams reinforced exclusively with longitudinalglass fiber reinforced polymer bars: experimental research.Struct Concr. 2018;19:152–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700174
2. Kueres S, Hegger J. Variable strut inclination model for sheardesign of FRP reinforced concrete members with shear rein-forcement. Eng Struct. 2020;206:12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.110154
3. Marí A, Cladera A, Oller E, Bair�an J. Shear design of FRPreinforced concrete beams without transverse reinforcement.Compos Part B Eng. 2014;57:228–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2013.10.005
4. Nanni A. Fiber-reinforced-plastic (FRP) reinforcement for concretestructures. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 1993. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2009-0-09136-3
5. Oller E, Marí A, Bair�an JM, Cladera A. Shear design ofreinforced concrete beams with FRP longitudinal and trans-verse reinforcement. Compos Part B Eng. 2015;74:104–22.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2014.12.031
6. Shehata E, Morphy R, Rizkalla SH. Fiber reinforced polymershear reinforcement for concrete members, behaviour anddesign guidelines. Can J Civil Eng. 2000;27:859–72. https://doi.org/10.1139/l00-004
7. Enomoto T, Grace NF, Harada T. Life extension of Prestressedconcrete bridges using CFCC tendons and reinforcements. Ininternational conference on FRP composites in civil engineer-ing (CICE). Rome, Italy; 2012.
8. Grace NF, Navarre FC, Nacey RB, Bonus W, Collavino L.Design-construction of bridge street bridge - first CFRP bridgein the United States. PCI J. 2002;47:20–35. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.09012002.20.35
9. Schöck Bauteile GmbH. Allgemeine bauaufsichtlicheZulassung Z-1.6-238: Bewehrungsstab Schöck ComBAR ausglasfaserverstärktem Kunststoff Nenndurchmesser: 8, 12,16, 20 und 25 mm (No. Z-1.6-238). Berlin; 2019.
10. American Concrete Institute. Guide for the design and con-struction of structural concrete reinforced with fiber-reinforcedpolymer (FRP) bars. (ACI 440.1R-15). Farmington Hills, Michi-gan: American Concrete Institute; 2015.
11. Canadian Standards Association. Design and construction ofbuilding structures with fibre-reinforced polymers. (Norm,CSA S806-12:2017). Mississauga, Ontario, Canada: CanadianStandards Association; 2012.
12. Japan Society of Civil Engineers (October 1997). Recommen-dation for design and construction of concrete structuresusing continuous fiber reinforcing materials. Concr EngSeries 23:77.
13. Gamble WL, Reigstad GH, Reigstad J. Brittle failures in precastparking structures. Concr Int. 2019;41:32–9.
14. Bielak J, Will N, Hegger J, Bosbach S. Shear capacity of TRCslabs: modelling and examples from practice. ACI Special Pub.2021;345:16–31.
15. Lunn D, Lucier G, Rizkalla S, Cleland N, Gleich H. New gener-ation of precast concrete double tees reinforced with carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer grid. PCI J. 2015;60:37–48. https://doi.org/10.15554/pcij.07012015.37.48
16. Schumann A, Michler H, Schladitz F, Curbach M. Parkingslabs made of carbon reinforced concrete. Struct Concr. 2018;19:647–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700147
17. Sydow A, Kurath J, Steiner P. Extrem leichte Brücke ausvorgespanntem Carbonbeton. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau. 2019;114:869–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/best.201800108
18. Hegger J, Kulas C, Horstmann M. Realization of TRC façadeswith impregnated AR-glass textiles. Key Eng Mater. 2011;466:121–30. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.466.121
19. von der Heid A-C, Grebe R. Perforierte und vollflächigeFassadenplatten aus carbonbewehrtem Beton. Bauingenieur.2020;95:210–9. https://doi.org/10.37544/0005-6650-2020-06-54
20. Hirai T. Use of continuous fibers for reinforcing concrete.Concr Int. 1992;14:58–60.
21. Kromoser B, Preinstorfer P, Kollegger J. Building lightweightstructures with carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer-reinforcedultra-high-performance concrete: research approach, construc-tion materials, and conceptual design of three building compo-nents. Struct Concr. 2019;20:730–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201700225
22. Preinstorfer P, Huber P, Huber T, Kromoser B, Kollegger J. Exper-imental investigation and analytical modelling of shear strength ofthin walled textile-reinforced UHPC beams. Eng Struct. 2021;231:111735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111735
23. Valeri P, Guaita P, Baur R, Fern�andez Ruiz M, Fern�andez-Ord�oñez D, Muttoni A. Textile reinforced concrete for sustain-able structures: future perspectives and application to a proto-type pavilion. Struct Concr. 2020;21:2251–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201900511
24. Sonobe Y. An overview of R&D in Japan. In: Nanni A, editor.Fiber-reinforced-plastic (FRP) reinforcement for concrete struc-tures. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 1993. p. 115–28.
25. Sugita M. NEFMAC - grid type reinforcement. In: Nanni A,editor. Fiber-reinforced-plastic (FRP) reinforcement for con-crete structures. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 1993.p. 355–85.
26. Rempel S, Ricker M, Hegger J. Safety concept for textile-reinforced concrete structures with bending load. Appl Sci.2020;10:7328. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207328
27. Bielak J, Rempel S, Felber M, Durst H-J, Will N. Sanierung desRheinstegs bei Albbruck mit Carbonbeton. Beton- und Sta-hlbetonbau. 2021;116:488–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/best.202100024
28. Lubell AS. Shear in wide reinforced concrete members (PhDThesis). University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2007.
29. Sherwood EG One-way shear behaviour of large, lightly-reinforced concrete beams and slabs. Dissertation. Universtityof Toronto, Toronto; 2008.
30. Adam V, Herbrand M, Claßen M. ExperimentelleUntersuchungen zum Einfluss der Bauteilbreite und derSchubschlankheit auf die Querkrafttragfähigkeit von Sta-hlbetonplatten ohne Querkraftbewehrung. Bauingenieur. 2018;93:37–45. https://doi.org/10.37544/0005-6650-2018-01-61
31. Yang Y, Den Uijl J, Walraven J, Petrocheilos S. Influence ofspatial variability on the shear capacity of RC members withoutshear reinforcement. IABSE Symp Rep. 2013;99:1679–86.https://doi.org/10.2749/222137813806521315
32. Bielak J, Hegger J, Schmidt M. Shear capacity of carbon fibretextile reinforced concrete slabs with planar and C-shaped
16 BIELAK AND HEGGER
shear reinforcement. FRPRCS 14. Belfast, England; Queen'sUniversity Belfast; 2019.
33. Bielak J, Hegger J, Will N. Zwanzig20 – Carbon Concrete Com-posite C3 – C3-V-I.14 Querkraftbemessung für Carbonbeton nachdem neuen Eurocode 2 – Schlussbericht (No. 427/2020). Aachen;2020. https://doi.org/10.2314/KXP:1727652398
34. Rempel S. Zur Zuverlässigkeit der Bemessung vonbiegebeanspruchten Betonbauteilen mit textiler Bewehrung.Dissertation. RWTH Aachen University, Aachen; (2018)https://doi.org/10.18154/RWTH-2019-01098
35. Schütze E, Bielak J, Scheerer S, Hegger J, Curbach M. Uniaxialtensile test for carbon reinforced concrete with textile rein-forcement. Beton- Und Stahlbetonbau. 2018;113:33–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/best.201700074
36. Bielak J. Shear in slabs with non-metallic reinforcement:(accepted). Dissertation, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen; 2021.
37. Schneider K, Butler M, Mechtcherine V. Carbon ConcreteComposites C3 - Nachhaltige Bindemittel und Betone für dieZukunft. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau. 2017;112:784–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/best.201700058
38. Wulff M. Basisvorhaben B2 - Nachhaltige Bindemittel und Bet-one für die Zukunft: Teilvorhaben: Zemente undBindemittelsysteme für hochfeste C3-Betone: Abschlussberichtzum Verbundprojekt: Förderzeitraum: 01.03.2015–31.08.2016;2016. https://doi.org/10.2314/GBV:882323601
39. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. Zement - Teil 5: Por-tlandkompositzement CEM II/C-M und Kompositzement CEMVI. (Norm, DIN EN 197-5:2021-05). Berlin: Beuth; 2021.
40. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. Prüfung von Festbeton – Teil13: Bestimmung des Elastizitätsmoduls unter Druckbelastung(Sekantenmodul). (Norm, DIN EN 12390-13:2019-10). Berlin:Beuth; 2019a.
41. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. Prüfung von Festbeton-Teil 3: Druckfestigkeit von Probekörpern. (Norm, DIN EN12390-3:2019-10). Berlin: Beuth; 2019b.
42. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. Prüfverfahren für Zement -Teil 1: Bestimmung der Festigkeit. (Norm, DIN EN 196-1:2005-05). Berlin: Beuth; 2005.
43. Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. Prüfverfahren für Zement -Teil 1: Bestimmung der Festigkeit. (Norm, DIN EN 196-1:2016-11). Berlin: Beuth; 2016.
44. Kordina K & Blume F Empirische Zusammenhänge zur Ermittlungder Schubtragfähigkeit stabförmiger Stahlbetonelemente: DAfStb-Heft 364: Ernst & Sohn; 1985.
45. Bielak J, Adam V, Hegger J, Classen M. Shear capacity oftextile-reinforced concrete slabs without shear reinforcement.Appl Sci. 2019;9:20. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9071382
46. Bielak J, Spelter A, Will N, Claßen M. Verankerungsverhaltentextiler Bewehrungen in dünnen Betonbauteilen. Beton- undStahlbetonbau. 2018;113:515–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/best.201800013
47. Preinstorfer P, Kollegger J. New insights into the splitting fail-ure of textile-reinforced concrete. Compos Struct. 2020;243:10.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2020.112203
48. Nagasaka T, Fukuyama H, Tanigaki M. Shear performance ofconcrete beams reinforced with FRP stirrups. ACI Spec Publ.1993;138:789–812. https://doi.org/10.14359/4138
49. Okamoto T, Nagasaka T, Tanigaki M. Shear capacity of con-crete beams using FRP reinforcement. J Struct Constr Eng.1994;59:127–36. https://doi.org/10.3130/aijs.59.127_1
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Jan Bielak, RWTH AachenUniversity, Institute of StructuralConcrete, Mies-VAN-DER-Rohe-Str.1, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Josef Hegger, RWTH AachenUniversity, Institute of StructuralConcrete, Mies-VAN-DER-Rohe-Str. 1,52074, Aachen, Germany.
How to cite this article: Bielak J, Hegger J.Enhancing shear capacity of thin slabs with CFRPshear reinforcement: Experimental study.Structural Concrete. 2021;1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202100325
BIELAK AND HEGGER 17