Concrete Shear Research

PSZ 19:16 (Pind.
1/07)
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

DECLARATION OF THESIS / UNDERGRADUATE PROJECT PAPER AND COPYRIGHT
ANG TING GUAN

Authors full name :
Date of birth
Title
10 / 02 / 1982
THE INFLUENCE OF THE ANCHORAGE OF

INDEPENDENT BENT-UP BAR ON ITS SHEAR CAPACITY
2007/2008
Academic Session:
I declare that this thesis is classified as :
CONFIDENTIAL
(Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

Act 1972)*
RESTRICTED
(Contains restricted information as specified by the

organization where research was done)*
OPEN ACCESS
I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

(full text)
I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

1. The thesis is the property of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
2. The Library of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia has the right to make copies for the purpose
of research only.
3. The Library has the right to make copies of the thesis for academic exchange.
Certified by :
SIGNATURE
SIGNATURE OF SUPERVISOR
820210-01-6267
P.M. DR. RAMLI ABDULLAH
(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.)
8 MAY 2008
Date :
NOTES :
NAME OF SUPERVISOR
Date :
If the thesis is CONFIDENTAL or RESTRICTED, please attach with the letter from
the organization with period and reasons for confidentiality or restriction.
I hereby declare that I have read this thesis and in my opinion to this thesis is sufficient
in terms of scope and quality for the award of the Master of Civil Engineering.
Signature
: ...
Name of Supervisor
: PM. DR. RAMLI ABDULLAH
Date
: 9 MAY 2008
THE INFLUENCE OF THE ANCHORAGE OF

INDEPENDENT BENT-UP BAR ON ITS
SHEAR CAPACITY
ANG TING GUAN
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirement for the award of degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil - Structure)
Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
APRIL, 2008
ii
I declare that this thesis entitled The Influence of the Anchorage of Independent Bentup Bar on its Shear Capacityis the result of my own research except as cited in the
references. The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not concurrently
submitted in candidature of any other degree.
Signature
_________________
Name
ANG TING GUAN
Date
8 MAY 2008
iii
Dedicated to
To my beloved parents
Thanks for your support
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The successfully completion of this project is the result of many people have
given me a helping hand. I have learnt a many things other than from text or note
from my engineering course. The experience that I gain through this project will
become the valuable treasure in my life.
First of all, I wish to express my grateful thanks to my project supervisor,

P.M Dr. Ramli Abdullah for his invaluable guidance, suggestions and helpful advices
for various types of analysis and comparison processes to be carried out as well as
contents improvements. Thanks for his contribution in the progress of doing this
project. In addition, deep appreciation to his for spending time in our frequent
discussions and questioning and answering which led to the accomplishment of this
project.
I also wish to acknowledge those who lend me a hand when I encounter some
problem in my project. For example the lecturers that have taught me the knowledge
about reinforced concrete and other related. Without their help, I may not finish the
project on time. In addition, I also wish to express my great appreciation to my
friend, who gives the information and also guidance to accomplish this project.
Finally, I wish to convey my heartful thanks to my parents and wife who have
given me constant support and encouragement throughout the dissertation. For the
last but not the least, I want to give my gratitude for those people that help me in this
project but not stated above, their contributions will not be forgotten.
ABSTRACT
The use of independent bent-up bars as parts of shear reinforcement has been
shown to be effective. Laboratory tests revealed that beams provided with a
particular amount of such reinforcement in conjunction with nominal links achieved
higher shear resistance than beams with the normally adopted vertical design links.
In the conventional bent-up bars system, it was required that the length of the
horizontal portion of the bars after the bend be at least the anchorage length of the
bar. In many cases, this requirement has limited the provision of closely spaced
multiple system of bent-up bars. This project presents the results of experimental
investigation on five rectangular beams in which the effect of using short anchorage
of the independent bent-up bars on the capacity of the beam in carrying shear was
studied. The influence of various amounts of bent-up bars was also investigated. All
the beams were provided with identical longitudinal reinforcement but with different
sets of shear reinforcement. In one beam, the shear reinforcement was in the form of
closely spaced vertical links, while the other three beams had nominal links
combined with independent bent-up bars of various amount and anchorage lengths.
Test results indicate that the anchorage length of the bent-up bars is insignificant to
the capability of the bars in carrying shear. It also suggests that the provision of the
large amount of the bent-up bars does not produce the corresponding advantage to
the beams shear capacity. It may therefore be concluded that independent bent-up
bars be used effectively and economically in reinforced concrete beam design to
resist shear.
vi
ABSTRAK
Kegunaan bar condong bebas sebagai tetulang ricih adalah berkesan. Ujikaji
makmal mendapati rasuk yang dibekalkan dengan sesetengah bilangan tetulang
bersama dengan nonimal perangkai untuk mencapai rintangan ricih yang lebih tinggi
daripada perangkai pugak yang biasa digunakan. Dalam sistem tradisional bar
condong, kepanjangan bahagian bar melintang selepas dibengkokkan mesti
sekurang- kurangnya kepanjangan tambatan bar. Dalam banyak situasi, kelayakan ini
telah mengehadkan bekalan gandaan sistem yang berjarak rapat bagi bar condong.
Kajian ini memaparkan keputusan dari ujikaji makmal yang telah dijalankan ke atas
lima rasuk bersegi empat dimana kesannya menggunakan tambatan yang pendek
dalam bar condong terhadap keupayaan menanggung ricih telah dikaji. Pengaruh dari
pelbagai bilangan bar yang dibengkok juga pun diujikaji. Semua rasuk dibekalkan
dengan tetulang bergarisan bujur yang sama tetapi set ricih tetulang yang berlainan.
Dalam satu rasuk, ricih tetulang adalah dalam bentuk perangkai pugak yang berjarak
dekat, manakala tiga rasuk yang berlainan mempunyai nominal perangkai yang
bergabungan dengan bar condong bebas dengan pelbagai bilangan dan panjang
tambatan. Keputusan ujikaji menunjukkan kepanjangan tambatan dari bar condong
adalah tidak berkesan untuk menanggung ricih. Ujikaji ini juga mencadangkan
dengan membekalkan banyak bar condong bebas tidak akan menghasilkan kebaikan
yang sama kepada keupayaan ricih rasuk. Oleh yang demikian, bar condong bebas
adalah bekesan dan ekomoni untuk digunakan dalam mencorakkan rasuk konkrit
bertetulang untuk menahan ricih.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
TITLE
PAGE
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
iv
ABSTRACT
ABSTRAK
vi
TABLE OF CONTENT
vii
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
xi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
xvi
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
1.2
Objectives of Studies
1.3
Scope of Works
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Shear Stress Variation in Reinforced Rectangular Beams
2.2
Shear Failure in Beams without Shear Reinforcement
2.3
Types of Shear Failure
10
2.3.1
Case 1: (av/d > 6)
10
2.3.2
Case 2: (6> av/d > 2)
11
2.3.3
Case 3: (av/d > 2)
12
vii
2.3.4
2.4
2.5
2.6
12
Shear Reinforcement
13
2.4.1
Vertical Links
14
2.4.2
Bent-up Bars
17
BS8110 Requirement for Designing the

Shear Reinforcement
20
Summary
21
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
3.1
Introduction
23
3.2
Design of Experiment
24
3.3
Details of Test Specimens
25
3.2.1
Beam B1
25
3.2.2
Beam B2
26
3.2.3
Beam B3
27
3.2.4
Beam B4
28
3.2.5
Beam B5
29
3.4
3.5
Case 4: (av/d = 0)
Materials of Reinforced Concrete Beam
30
3.4.1
Steel Reinforcement
31
3.4.2
Concrete
32
Preparation of Test Specimens
33
3.5.1
Formwork
33
3.5.2
Reinforcement
34
3.4.3
Concreting and Curing
36
3.6
Compression Tests: Cube test
38
3.7
Test Procedure
40
3.8
Instrumentation
42
TEST RESULTS
4.1
Introduction
44
4.2
Beam B1
45
4.2.1
Specimen Behavior during Test
45
4.2.2
Test Results
46
4.3
Beam B2
47
viii
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.3.1
48
4.3.2
Test Results
49
Beam B3
50
4.4.1
50
4.4.2
Test Results
51
Beam B4
52
4.5.1
52
4.5.2
Test Results
54
Beam B5
55
4.6.1
55
4.6.2
Test Results
57
Summary of Specimen Behavior and Test Results

for All Specimens
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
58
63
6.2
Conclusion
67
6.3
Recommendation
68
REFERENCES
70
APPENDIX A
71
APPENDIX B
78
APPENDIX C
79
APPENDIX D
89
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
2.1
TITLE
PAGE
Value of ultimate shear stress vc (N/mm2)for a concrete

strength of fcu = 25 N/mm2 (BS8110 : 1997)
17
3.1
Details of specimens
25
3.2
Proportion of concrete mix design
33
4.1
Concrete compression strength for all beams
45
4.7
The Results of the all specimens
60
5.2
The comparison between testing result

and calculation value
65
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
2.1
Principal stresses in a beam
2.2
Shear stress variation in reinforced rectangular beams.
2.3
Failure due to av/d ratio
2.4
Case 1: (av/d > 6)
10
2.5
Case 2: (6> av/d > 2)
11
2.6
Case 3: (av/d > 2)
12
2.7
Case 4: (av/d = 0)
12
2.8
Shear reinforcement
13
2.9
Types of shear reinforcement
14
2.10
Vertical links
14
2.11
Vertical links and the analogous truss
15
2.12
Bent-up Bars
18
3.1
Dimension of Beam Specimen
25
3.2
Beam B1
26
3.3
Beam B2
27
3.4
Beam B3
28
3.5
Beam B4
29
3.6
Beam B5
30
xii
3.7
Several size of steel reinforcement
31
3.8
Independent bent-up bar with different amount

of anchorage length.
32
3.9
Ply woods formwork
34
3.10
Bar bender machine Takeda TBN-32
35
3.11
Steel cutter machine branded Kingsland
35
3.12
Reinforcement cast into formworks
36
3.13
Mechanical drum mixer
37
3.14
Steel cube moulds
37
3.15
Casting completed
37
3.16
Specimens coated with white pain layer
38
3.17
Compressive strength test machine
39
3.18
Flow chart of research methodology
41
3.19
Testing machine and set up
42
3.20
Testing instruments
43
4.1
Appearance and cracking configuration of

specimen beam B1
46
4.2
Graph load versus deflection for specimen beam B1
47
4.3

specimen beam B2
49
4.4
49
4.5

specimen beam B3
51
4.6
52
4.7

specimen beam B4
54
4.8
55
4.9
xiii
specimen beam B5
56
4.10
57
4.11
Appearance and cracking configuration of all specimens
59
4.12
Graph compressive strength of concrete

for all specimens beams
60
4.13
Graph load versus deflection for all specimen beams
61
4.14
Graph maximum ultimate load for all specimen beams
61
4.15
Graph maximum deflection for all specimen beams
62
xiv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Area of cross-section
As
Area of tension reinforcement
Asb
Area of steel in bent-up bars
As,prov -
Area of tension reinforcement provided
As, req
Area of tension reinforcement required
Asv
Total cross-sectional area of links at the neutral axis
av
Shear span
Width of a section
bv
Breadth of member for shear resistance
Cover to reinforcement
Effective depth of the tension reinforcement
fcu
Characteristic concrete cube strength at 28 days
fs
Service stress in reinforcement
ftt
Design tensile stress in concrete at transfer
fy
Characteristic strength of reinforcement
fyb
Characteristic strength of inclined bars
fyv
Characteristic strength of link reinforcement
Effective span of a beam
Mmax -
Maximum bending moment
sb
Spacing of bent-up bars
sv
Spacing of links
Shear force at ultimate design load
Vb
Design ultimate shear resistance of bent-up bars
Vc
Design ultimate shear resistance of a concrete section
Shear stress
xv
vb
Design shear stress resistance of bent-up bars
vc
Design ultimate shear resistance of a singly reinforcement concrete

beam
Angle between a bent-up bar and axis of a beam
Bond coefficient
Bar diameter
Angle
xvi
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
Analysis of singly reinforcement rectangular section
71-77
Concrete mix design Grade 30
78
Detail for Testing Result
79-88
Calculation of Shear Stress Analysis
89-94
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
Reinforcement concrete beam is concrete in which reinforcement bars have

been incorporated to strengthen a material. The shear reinforcement must be
provided when the value of actual shear stress exceeds the permissible shear stress of
the concrete used. Shear reinforcement is used to prevent failure in shear; this
increases the ductility of the beam and considerably reduces the chances of a sudden
failure. Furthermore, the anchorage is the embedment of a bar in concrete so that it
can carry load through bond between the steel and concrete.
Generally, an inclined bar is one that is employed to resist tension in the

bottom of the beam near mid- span and is then bent up at 45o into the top of the
member, where it may provide resistance over the support. In such a case, the force
in the horizontal parts of the bar must balance the horizontal components of the force
in the inclined part and the complementary compressive resistance.
Any form of effectively anchored reinforcement that intersects these diagonal

cracks will be able to resist the stress to a certain extent3. In practice, shear
2
reinforcement is provided whether in the form of vertical links, inclined links or
combination system of links and bent-up bars. Bent- up bars is normally used to
carry heavy shear forces.
Vertical links are simple in fabricating and installing, therefore it is most

common used as shear reinforcement in building construction. Links are arranged
closely or sometimes double or more shear links are used to resist high shear stress.
Congestion near the support of reinforced concrete beam due to the presence of the
closely spaced links can increase the cost and time required in fixing the
reinforcement.
The use of bent- up bars along with vertical links had been practical before,
where all the tensile reinforcement is not required to resist bending moment; some of
the bar was bent- up in the region of high shear to form the inclined legs of shear
reinforcement. However, inclined bars are seldom used in present- day practice. This
is because the cost of bending is not insignificant. They are also difficult to
manipulate and fix compare with straight bars, especially in congested situations. In
beams with small number of bars provided, the bent- up system is not suitable due to
insufficient amount of reinforcement would be left to continue to the support as
required by the code of practice.
However, where large concentrated loads must be supported, their use should
be considered in order to avoid the congestion that can arise when the multiple- link
systems, that would otherwise be necessary, are employed. Inclined bars used as
shearing reinforcement must be checked for anchorage and bearing.
In this project, total of five reinforced concrete beams which were contained
different types of shear reinforcement and anchorage length were designed and used
in the laboratory testing. All the beams were designed to fail in shear. Thus the
tension reinforcement and concrete properties recommended need to be considered
3
and calculated to give a sufficient of bending moment resistance. Furthermore, same
grade of concrete and the size are applied to the entire beam. All the beams will be
tested and the result will be compared.
1.2
Objective of the Studies
The main objectives of this study are:
a) To study the effectiveness of independent inclined bars as shear reinforcement in

rectangular beams.
b) To investigate the anchorage length of the independent bent up bar on its

capacity in carrying shear.
c) To study the influence of the amount of the independent bent up bar on its
capacity in resisting shear.
4
1.3
Scope of Works
This study was based on the experimental investigation carried out within the
scope as below:
(a) Five reinforced concrete beams which are contained different types of shear
reinforcement and anchorage length were designed and used in the laboratory
testing.
(b) Grade C30 concrete are applied the entire beam and the size of the beam were
200mm width x 250mm height x 2300mm length
(c) Each of the beams was provided with 3T16 as tension reinforcement and 2T10 as
top of reinforcement and the variable of vertical links and inclined bars as shear
reinforcement system.
(d) All specimens were tested to failure with two point loads near the support.
.
(e) The inclination of the independent bent-up bar was 45 degree from the
longitudinal axis and provided within 500mm from support beam.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Shear Stress Variation in Reinforced Rectangular Beams
Shear is a technical term used when the two sections on either side of a plane
in a member have a tendency to slide along that plane. The tendency is caused by the
shear forces that act in the opposite directions. Figure 2.1 are represents the
distribution of principal stresses across the span of a homogeneous concrete beam.
The form of an arch is taken on the principal compressive stress while the tensile
stresses have a curve of a suspended chain. The shear is low and the bending
stresses are dominant the direction of the stresses tends to be parallel to the beam
axis at the mid-span. Near the supports, the shearing forces are greater and the
principal stresses are inclined, so that the tensile stresses are liable to cause a
diagonal cracking. Therefore, Shear reinforcement must be provided when the
diagonal tension exceeds the limit tensile strength of the concrete.
The variation of bending moment along the span causes the shear. The
relationships between shear V and bending moment M is shown below. Once the
shear V is known, the shear stress v can be obtained by dividing the shear force with
the area of cross section on which the shear is acting:
6
V = dM/dx
Equation 2.1
Figure 2.1: Principal stresses in a beam
As shown in Figure 2.2, shear stress variation in reinforced rectangular

beams is in the forms of parabolic and uniform. The section above neutral axis is in
compression, while below neutral axis is in tension. As T + T is greater than T, the
lower portion has a tendency to slide towards right, while the upper portion has a
tendency to slide towards left due to C + T greater than C.
Figure 2.2: Shear stress variation in reinforced rectangular beams.
Normally, calculation is used to determine dimension of the cross- section of

a reinforced concrete beam and area of longitudinal steel, which consider as
resistance to bending moment at the ultimate limit state. If load in a plain concrete
beam is increased without reinforcement, tension crack will form at the largest
7
tension stresses location and will cause immediate fails to the beam. However, the
situation is different when tension reinforcement is provided; much higher loads can
be carried. This is due to the flexural tension strength will resist by the steel. Even
though tension cracks will still form in the concrete, it does not cause fail to the
beam.
Shear stresses increase proportionally to the loads. In the result, the diagonal
tension stresses of significant intensity are created in the regions which close to the
support, also known as regions of high shear force. Diagonal cracks formed is due to
the longitudinal tension reinforcement does not reinforce the tensional weak concrete
against the diagonal tension stresses that caused by shear or combined effect of shear
and flexure.
2.2
Shear Failure in Beams Without Shear Reinforcement
Shear reinforcement is important in preventing failure in shear. If the

reinforcement is not provided, the behavior of beams must be fully understood. In
beam without shear reinforcement, inclined cracking formed is depending on the
conditions of load and support. Once the load is increased, the inclined cracks may
develop and extend.
Diagonal tension stresses reach the tensile strength of the concrete is the
cause of diagonal cracks to develop. From Figure 2.3, the shear mechanism is
complex and depends in the shear span ratio ad.
Figure 2.3: Failure due to av/d ratio
There are three actions form the mechanism of resisting shear in the beam,
which are:,
a) Shear stresses in the compression zone with a parabolic distribution.
b) Aggregate interlock along the cracks
c) Dowel action in the bars where the concrete between the cracks transmits shear
forces to the bars.
According to BS 8110: Part I
(7)
, behavior of reinforced concrete beams is
much influenced by the shear stresses. It is also depending on configuration, support

conditions and load distribution. At a location of large shear force V and small
bending moment M, there will be little flexural cracking.
v = V / bvd
Where, V
= the ultimate shear force
bv
= the beam width (bv = b for rectangular beam)
= the effective depth
Equation 2.2
9
This value is then use as guild to determine whether the section is of the
correct size and whether shear reinforcement is required. The design concrete shear
stress vc depend on the percentage of the steel in the member, the depth and the
concrete grade. An increase in the amount of tension steel as well as increase in the
dowel action component increases the aggregate interlock value by resisting the
width of the shear crack.
The design concrete stress is given by the following formulae:

1
3
1
4
vc 0.79 100 As /(bv d ) (400 / d ) / m
Equation 2.3
Where 100As (bvd) should not be greater than 3.0 and 400/d should not be
less than unity. The code notes (clause 3.4.5.4 in BS 8110) that for tension steel to be
counted in calculating As it must continue for a distance at least equal to d beyond
the section being considered. This formula gives values of vc concrete grade 25. For
higher grades of concrete values should be multiplied by (fcu/25)1/3. The value of fcu
should not be greater than 40 and value of m is 1.25.
Shear failure in beam sections without shear reinforcement normally occurs

at about 30o to the horizontal. The shear capacity is increased when the angle is
steeper due to the load or the section is close to the support. The increase is due to
the concrete in diagonal compression resist shear. For a maximum shear stress
requirement, the nominal shear stress v = V/ bvd must exceed 0.8 fcu1/2 or 5 N/mm2
even if the beam is reinforced to resist shear. This upper limit prevents failure of the
concrete in diagonal compression.
10
2.3
Types of Shear Failure
The vertical cracks are produced by the bending moment and these are linked
to diagonal cracks produced by the shear forces. Rectangular beam fails eventually
as the shear forces V is increased and the failure mode is strongly dependent on the
shear-span/depth ratio av/d. There are five types of shear failure, which four are
related to shear span ratio av/d. When ratio increases, the shear resistance will be
decreases.
2.3.1 Case 1: (av/d > 6)
The bending moment is significantly large compare to the shear force and
mode of failure is similar to pure bending. The initial vertical bending cracks
become inclined due to the action of the shear stresses and failure occurs in the
compression zone as shown in Figure 2.4. The stresses in the tensile steel are
approximately at yield and only minimum reinforcement is required in design
situations.
Figure 2.4: Case 1: (av/d > 6)
11
2.3.2 Case 2: (6> av/d > 2)
The initial bending cracks become inclined early in the loading sequence and
at collapse horizontal cracks from running along the line of the tensile reinforcement,
which shown in Figure 2.5. The horizontal cracks reduce the shear resistance of the
section by destroying the dowel force and reducing the bond stresses between the
steel and the concrete. The steel in the tension zone does not reach yield.
Figure 2.5: Case 2: (6> av/d > 2)
2.3.3 Case 3: (av/d > 2)
The influence of shear tends to be critical and the diagonal crack form
independently. The beam continues to carry additional shear force and failure takes
place by crushing of concrete in compression near the loads as the cracks penetrates
into this zone. Therefore, in this case bending cracks do not develop but shear cracks
(at approximately 45o) suddenly appear and often run through to the compression
zone and produce collapse as shown in Figure 2.6. The steel in the tension zone does
not reach yield.
12
Figure 2.6: Case 3: (av/d > 2)
2.3.4 Case 4: (av/d = 0)
Punching shear failure occurs when the plane of failure is forced to run
parallel to the shear forces as shown in Figure 2.7. This can occur when the opposing
shear forces are close together or, if shear links have been added, when the failure
plane forms which does not intercept the shear links. When this type of failure
occurs, the shear resistance of the section is at a maximum. The additional of shear
reinforcement in the form of vertical links does not increase the shear resistance
above the punching shear value and if a section is unable to resist this force, it must
be increased in size.
Figure 2.7: Case 4: (av/d = 0)
13
2.4 Shear Reinforcement
The addition of shear reinforcement increases the shear resistance for cases of
failure I, II and III. Numerous diagonal cracks develop as shown in Figure 2.8 and at
failure the shear reinforcement and the longitudinal steel yield, provided that the
steel is anchored and the member is not over- reinforced.
Figure 2.8: Shear reinforcement
There are three types of shear reinforcement, which are vertical links,
inclined links and bent-up bars as shown in Figure 2.9. Commonly at the
construction practice, the vertical links are used as shear reinforcement because of
their simplicity in fabricating and installing. By the way, the inclined links are used
at an angle 40 to 60 degrees. Bent-up bars are normally used to carry heavy shear
forces. The inclination of the bent-up bars should be at 30 to 60 degree but usually
the angles are 45 degree in order to ensure the reinforcement intercepts the crack
effectively. Furthermore, bent-up bars are most effective in deep beams with low
span/ depth ratios where the straight inclined portions of the bars extend over a
considerable length of beam (Standard Reinforced Concrete Details, 1973).
14
Figure 2.9: Types of shear reinforcement
2.4.1 Vertical Links
When ultimate limit state at the average shear stress v exceeds the design
shear stress vc + 0.4 N/mm2 shear reinforcement is added. Vertical links is the most
common type of shear reinforcement which strengthens the web of a beam and
prevents dowel failure. Vertical links in a beam intercept at approximately 45o in the
concrete is shown in the Figure 2.10.
Figure 2.10: Vertical links
15
In order to derive simplified equations the action of a reinforced concrete
beam in shear is represented by an analogous truss in which the longitudinal
reinforcement forms the bottom chord, the links are the vertical members and the
concrete acts as the diagonal and top chord compression members as indicated in
Figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11: Vertical links and the analogous truss
In the analogous truss, let

Asv
be the cross- sectional area of the two legs of the vertical links
fyv
be the characteristic strength of the links reinforcement
be the shear force due to the ultimate loads
Using the method of section it can be seen at the section XX in the figure that
at the ultimate limit state the force in the vertical links member must equal the shear
force V, that is
0.95 fyv Asb = V
Equation 2.4
0.95 fyv Asb = vbd
Equation 2.5
16
where v = V/ bd is the average shear stress on the section,
when the links spacing is less than the effective depth, a series of superimposed
equivalent trusses may be considered, so that the force to be resisted by the link is
reduced proportionally. Thus if sv = the links spacing, the equation above will
becomes
0.95 fyv Asb = vbd (sv/d)
Hence,
Equation 2.6
the equation will be rewritten since the concrete is also capable of resisting a limited
amount of shear as
As / sv
bv v vc
0.95 f yv
Equation 2.7
where the vc is the ultimate shear stress that can be resisted by the concrete. Value of
vc are in table 2.1. As a simplified approach for the beam carrying mainly uniformly
distributed loads, the critical section for design may be taken at a distance d from the
face of the support using the value if vc. The average shear stress should never
exceed the lesser of 0.8fcu or 5 N/mm2.
17
Table 2.1: Value of ultimate shear stress vc (N/mm2) for a concrete strength of
fcu = 25 N/mm2 (BS8110 : 1997)
2.4.2 Bent-up Bars
Bent- up bars is normally used to carry heavy shear forces. The resistance to
shear of a beam reinforced with bent- up bars is based on the assumption that the
inclined bars form the tension members and the concrete the compression members
of a lattice girder system. The local bearing stress inside the bend in the bar may be
the limiting condition.
Inclined bars such as bent- up bar is another type of shear reinforcement.

Some of the bars may be bent up to form shear reinforcement while all the tensile
reinforcement is not required to resist the bending moment at the ultimate limit state.
In this case, bent- up bars must be adequately anchored at the top of the beam to
18
prevent bond failure. The bent- up bars can located at a distance from support from
L/5 to L/7 where L is the effective span of beam.
The bent- up bars resist diagonal tension and act as support to hanger bars
which are provided to give sufficient support to vertical stirrup. Bars may be bent up
near the supports to resist the shearing forces which shown in Figure 2.12. The bent
up bars and the shear resistance of the bars is determined by taking a section XX
through the girder.
Figure 2.12: Bent-up Bars
From the geometry of part (a) of the figure, the spacing of the bent up bars is
sb = (d-d)[cot + cot]
Equation 2.8
and at the section XX the shear resistance of the single bar is

V = 0.95 fyv Asb sin
Equation 2.9
19
Where Asb is the cross-sectional area of the bent-up bar.
For a multiple system of bent-up bars, as in part (b) of the figure, the shear resistance
is increased proportionately to the spacing sb. Hence
Vb = 0.95 fyv Asb sin [cot + cot] (d-d)/ Sb
Equation 2.10
The code requires that the spacing sb has a maximum value of 1.5d and the angles
and should be greater than or equal to 45. With = = 45and sb = (d d), so
the equation above becomes
V = 1.34 fyv Asb
Equation 2.11
And this arrangement is commonly referred to as a double system.
2.9
BS8110 Requirement for Designing the Shear Reinforcement
Calculate the design shear stress v at any cross section from

v = V / bvd
The shear stress must never exceed the lesser of 0.8fcu or 5 N/mm2.
v > 0.8 fcu or 5 N/mm2
20
If v < 0.5vc, then:
a)
No shear reinforcement is required for members of minor structural

importance, such as lintels.
b)
For all other structure members, provide minimum links which are
defined as shear links that will provide a shear resistance of 0.4 N/ mm2.
If 0.5vc < v < (vc + 0.4)

If v is between 0.5vc and (vc + 0.4), so the minimum links are needed to
provide for whole length of beam. So the area of shear reinforcement to be
provided is
As / sv
0.4bv
0.95 f yv
(vc + 0.4) < v < 0.8fcu or 5 N/mm2

If v is between in the range of (vc + 0.4) and 0.8fcu or 5 N/mm2, provide
links or links combined with bent-up bars. Not more than 50% of the shear
resistance provided by the steel may be in the form of bent-up bars. The links
are provided as follow:
As / sv
bv v vc
0.95 f yv
For the use of bent-up bars:

The shear resistance Vb of the system:
Vb = Asb(0.95fyv)(cos + sincot) d-d/sb
21
Where Asb is the cross-sectional area of the bent-up bars, fyv the characteristic
strength, and are the angles, d the effective depth, d the concrete cover to the
centers of the top reinforcement and sb is the spacing of the bent-up bars.
2.6
Summary
From the literature review carried out in this chapter, the following summaries are
raised:
a) Near the supports, the shearing forces are greater and the principal stresses
are inclined, so that the tensile stresses are liable to cause a diagonal cracking.
Therefore, Shear reinforcement must be provided when the diagonal tension
exceeds the limit tensile strength of the concrete.
b) If load in a plain concrete beam is increased without reinforcement, tension

crack will form at the largest tension stresses location and will cause
immediate fails to the beam. However, the situation is different when tension
reinforcement is provided; much higher loads can be carried. This is due to
the flexural tension strength will resist by the steel.
c) Shear failure in beam sections without shear reinforcement normally occurs

at about 30o to the horizontal. The shear capacity is increased when the angle
is steeper due to the load or the section is close to the support.
22
d) Diagonal cracks formed is due to the longitudinal tension reinforcement does
not reinforce the tensional weak concrete against the diagonal tension
stresses that caused by shear or combined effect of shear and flexure.
e) Rectangular beam fails eventually as the shear forces V is increased and the
failure mode is strongly dependent on the shear-span/depth ratio av/d.
f) The bent- up bars resist diagonal tension and act as support to hanger bars
which are provided to give sufficient support to vertical links. In BS8110, at
least 50% of the shear resistance must provided by the vertical links.
23
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
3.1
Introduction
The purpose of this project is to investigate the use of the inclined bar as
shear reinforcement with different types of bar arrangement and anchorage length.
Therefore, due to the problems of conventional shear reinforcement, the uses of
independent inclined bars provided in the high shear region are recommended in this
project. In order to experimental the investigation of testing, the system was carried
out at Structure Laboratory of the Faculty of Civil Engineering.
First of all, total five reinforced concrete beams which were contained
in the laboratory testing. All the beams were designed to fail in shear. Thus the
tension reinforcement and concrete properties recommended need to be considered
and calculated to give a sufficient of bending moment resistance. Furthermore, same
grade of concrete and the same size cross section are applied to the beam. All the
beam were tested and compared.
24
3.2
Design of Experiment
In this investigation, five reinforced concrete beams which are contained

in the laboratory testing. Concrete grade C30 are applied to all the beam and the size
of the beam were 200mm width x 250mm height x 2300mm length shown in Figure
3.1 below. Each of the beams was provided with identical amount of main
reinforcement and the variable of vertical links and inclined bars as shear
reinforcement system, all details of specimens are shown in Table 3.1.
To study the behavior of the shear failure in reinforced concrete beam, Beam
B1 was designed with sufficient amount of nominal links and shear link to resist the
shear failure and served as a control specimen. The beam was provided with 3T16 as
tension reinforcement and 2T10 as hanger bars. Beam B2, B3 and B4 were designed
with the same nominal links and different independent inclined bars and anchorage
length as shear reinforcement. This 3 beam are designed to compare with the control
specimen for the behavior and carrying shear.
Beam B5 was cast only with
independent inclined bars as shear reinforcement and to investigated the result for
the ultimate load its can carry without combination of any vertical shear links. The
inclination was 45 degree from the longitudinal axis and provided within 500mm
from support. The spacing of the inclined bar for Beam B2, B3 and B4 were 200mm
while the Beam B5 was 100mm.
25
Table 3.1: Details of Specimens
Vertical links
Inclined Bars
Cross-section
Main
Shear
(mm)
Reinforcement
Region
B1
3T16
R6-50
R6 -150
B2
3T16
R6-150
R6 -150
4T16
75
3T16
R6-150
R6 -150
6T16
75
B4
3T16
R6-150
R6 -150
6T16
150
B5
3T16
8T16
150
Beam
200 x 250
B3
Nominal
Amount
Anchorage
length
Figure 3.1: Dimension of Beam Specimen
3.3
Details of Test Specimens
3.3.1 Beam B1
In practical, vertical links are most commonly used in construction site as

shear reinforcement compared to the inclined links and bent-up bars. For the beam
B1 (as shown in Figure 3.2) were designed and prepared according to BS 8110 with
sufficient amount of nominal links and shear links to resist the shear failure. This
beam also served as control specimen.
26
As conventional shear reinforcement, this beam is using closely vertical links
at shear region. That is mean; links 6mm with spacing 150mm (R6-150) was used as
nominal links at middle and link 6mm with spacing 50mm (R6-50) as shear links at
the support. Shear links are arranged closely at shear region with 500mm length near
the support. By the way, at the middle of the beam span, nominal links are arranged
within 1000mm. Beam B1 was provided with 3T16 as tension reinforcement and
2T10 as top reinforcement.
Figure 3.2: Beam B1
3.3.2 Beam B2
From Figure 3.3, Beam B3 was designed with nominal links and independent
inclined bars as shear reinforcement. Top and bottom reinforcement were provided
similar as beam B1, which is 2T10 and 3T16. This beam is designed as bent-up bars
system in the form of independent bars. Compared to other specimen, independent
inclined bars are most efficient because these shear reinforcement were placed in the
27
direction of the principle tensile stresses. The inclination of bent-up bars is 45from
the longitudinal axis and provided 4 bars with 16mm size (4T16) of reinforcement
within 500mm length near the support. Furthermore, spacing between these inclined
bars was 200mm and the anchorage length for inclined bar is 75mm. This beam also
provided with nominal links with R6-150 along the beam span.
Figure 3.3: Beam B2
3.3.3 Beam B3
Beam B3 (as shown in Figure 3.4 below) was designed in order to investigate
the performance of an increased amount of additional bars in resisting shear forces.
At beam B3, the amount of inclined bars was increased from 4T16 to 6T16 at shear
region. The spacing between these inclined bars was 200mm and the anchorage
length for inclined bar is 75mm. This beam also provided with nominal links with
R6-150 along the beam span. The top and bottom reinforcement were provided
similar as other specimens.
28
Figure 3.4: Beam B3
3.3.4 Beam B4
Beam B4 as shown in Figure 3.5 below, was designed in order to investigate

the anchorage length of the independent bent up bar on its capacity in carry shear. At
beam B4, the amount of anchorage length was increased from 75mm to 150mm at
shear region. The arrangement and positions of the independent bent-up bars are
same as Beam B3. The spacing between these inclined bars was 200mm and also
provided with nominal links with R6-150 along the beam span. The top and bottom
reinforcement were provided similar as other specimens.
29
Figure 3.5: Beam B4
3.3.5 Beam B5
To study the influence of the amount of the independent bent up bar on its
capacity in resisting shear. Beam B5 was designed without any vertical links but only
provided with the independent inclined bars as shear reinforcement as shown in
Figure 3.6 below. Only 3 nominal links were provided at the middle and each edge of
the beam length, in order to ease the installation of main reinforcement. Top and
bottom reinforcement were provided similar as other beams, which is 2T10 and
3T16. The inclination of bent-up bars is 45from the longitudinal axis and provided
8 bars with 16mm size (4T16) of reinforcement within 500mm length near the
support. Furthermore, spacing between these inclined bars was 100mm and the
anchorage length for inclined bar is 150mm.
30
Figure 3.6: Beam B5
3.4
Materials of Reinforced Concrete Beam
Reinforced concrete is a composite material of steel bars embedded in a

hardened concrete. Normally, plain concrete whilst strong in compression is
relatively weak in tension and is therefore generally unsuitable for structure use. For
this reason, most concrete structures are of reinforced concrete in which the steel
bars are positioned in the concrete to resist the tensile forces, with the concrete
resisting the compressive forces. Reinforced concrete beam is designed as specified
materials, which are required to provide adequate safety during their services.
31
3.4.1 Steel Reinforcement
Commonly, concrete strong in compressive but weak in tension and steel are
good in compressive and tension. Therefore, steel is important reinforcing material
for concrete. Normally, type of reinforcing steel is form of round bars. The strength
of high steel is 460 N/mm2 and 250 N/mm2 for mild steel. In this project, high steel
reinforcement was used as tension steel, compressive steel and for additional bar in
resisting shear forces. While mild steel were used as shear and nominal links.
Furthermore, 3 bars with size 16mm (3T16) are chosen at tension

reinforcement and 2 bars with size 10mm (2T10) are chosen at compression
reinforcement as shown in Figure 3.7. R6 were provided for each beams for shear
and nominal links. All reinforcement bars used were in clean condition with only
minor rust.
For the inclined bar as shown in Figure 3.8, T16 was used to resist the shear
forces. In design consideration, a reinforce bars must be adequate anchored;
otherwise it will withdraw from the concrete before it has reached its full tensile
strength. So 75mm and 150mm of anchorage length are be using in this investigation.
Figure 3.7: Several sizes of steel reinforcement
32
Figure 3.8: Independent bent-up bar with different amount of anchorage length.
3.4.2 Concrete
Concrete is composed mainly of three materials, namely cement, water and

aggregate and an additional material, known as an admixture is sometimes added to
modify certain of its properties. Plain concrete is made by mixing cement, fine
aggregate, coarse aggregate and water. In this project, the target mean strength to be
obtained at 28days is 30 N/mm2 with a medium workability.
Concrete mix design was carried out for this investigation to ensure each of
specimens will satisfy the compressive strength specification. The purpose of mixing
is to produce an intimate mixture content of cement, water, fine and coarse
aggregate. Coarse aggregate with the size of 10 mm, fine aggregate and Ordinary
Portland Cement (OPC) are used as the major constituent of the concrete mix. The
ratio for free-water/cement was 0.54. Furthermore, water is needed for the chemical
process or hydration for making structural concrete, which the concrete will hardens
to reach sufficient strength. Therefore, several trial mixes need to be carried out to
determine the correct proportion of material. After prepared all the material, mixing
will be carry on by using a rotated mechanical mixer as shown in figure 3.12. The
mixing shall be continued until there is a uniform distribution of the materials.
33
In order to get good concrete, curing is needed because it let the process of
keeping the concrete moist to gain full strength. All the specimens will be covered
with plastic to sure that the water wont evaporate. In order can precisely achieving
the required strength for the grade of concrete at later stage, several trial mixes had
been conducted. 10 steel mold which with each dimension of 100mm x 100mm x
100mm had been used repeatedly to conduct the trial mix. Compaction test then was
carried up onto those trial cubes to measure the compressive strength of the concrete.
The amount of the material for concrete grade C30 for typical one meter cube is
shown in Table 3.2, it needed 410kg of cement, 220kg of water, 805kg of sand and
945kg of coarse aggregate and the calculations of concrete grade are shown in
Appendix B.
Table 3.2: Proportion of concrete mix design

Material
Grade
fcu
Quantities
Water
Cement
Fine
Coarse
Aggregate Aggregate 10mm
C30
3.5
(N/mm2)
(m3)
(kg)
(kg)
(kg)
(kg)
30
220
410
805
945
Preparation of Test Specimens
3.5.1 Formwork
In this investigation, 5 sets of formworks had been prepared. The material

selected were the 18mm thick plywood which were well-cut into the desired
dimensions. The ply woods were then held together firmly by using nail. The
finished internal dimension of the formworks was 200mm width x 250mm height x
2300mm length. Figure 3.9 shows the specimen preparation for the specimens.
34
Therefore, the inner part of formwork was being saturated and covered by oil before
casting to ease the stripping of formwork after the concrete has hardened.
Figure 3.9: Ply woods formwork
3.5.2 Reinforcement
During the preparation of material and formwork, the steel reinforcement

were cut and bent into required length and shape and they were later combined to
form reinforcement cage. For the bar cutting work, electric machine branded
Kingsland was used as shown in Figure 3.10. The bars with diameter larger than
10mm were cut by using this machine. For mild yield bar R6 cutting, only manual
cutter was used. For bar bending purpose, bar bender machine Takeda TBN-32 with
inner bend diameter of 150mm had used as shown in figure 3.11. This machine was
useful to across with bar bending job concern with high yield strength bar and also
for the independent bent-up bars. On the order hand, a man made mold had been
produced by using wood and nail to ease the vertical link construction work.
Furthermore, the mechanical bar bender was needed to bend the mild yield strength
bar bending task.
35
After the vertical links, independent bent-up bars and main bars have
prepared, the reinforcement caging work began. The manual rebar bender had been
used for all bar tighten task to bond the vertical links and independent bent-up bars to
the main bars upon completion. A day before concreting, the reinforcement cage was
inserted into the formwork (Figure 3.12). The reinforcement cage was hold firmly in
place inside the form with wood spacer at each side and hanging at top by steel wire.
All the spacers were then removed during the compaction work.
Figure 3.10: Bar bender machine Takeda TBN-32
Figure 3.11: Steel Cutter Machine branded Kingsland
36
Figure 3.12: Reinforcement cast into formworks
3.5.3 Concreting and Curing
Concrete drum mixer machine with capacity of 0.3 meter cube (Figure 3.13)
was used in concrete mixing task. Before the day of concrete mix, the materials were
prepared, weighed and stored in laboratory. Drum cleaned and saturated with clean
water before the mixing process. This was to ensure that no water which need for
hydration process later absorbed by drum or contaminants.
Before mixing, materials including cement, sand and coarse aggregate was
firstly being poured into the drum. It then followed by one third of required water, as
to ensure that no cement can adhere to the side of drum. Upon completion, mixer
started for three to five minutes and all the remaining water was slowly poured into
the mixer. At certain period, mixer was stopped and its condition was checked to
ensure its moisture content and mixing condition by visual inspection based on the
experience at trial mix. Upon finish mixing, concrete moved to concreting area along
with drum with aid of forklift.
Slump test then conducted before concreting to determine its workability as

in required condition. At the same time, ten concrete cubes with each 100mm x
37
100mm x 100mm were produced as shown in Figure 3.14. For compacting purpose,
vibrator poker with size of 25mm was used. After 2 days, formwork and mold was
being stripped and removed and specimens were cured by covering a layer of plastic.
In the Figure 3.16 below shown that, specimen was coated with a layer of white paint
before testing for ease of crack observation later.
Figure 3.13: Mechanical drum mixer
Figure 3.14: Steel cube moulds
Figure 3.15: Casting Completed
38
Figure 3.16: Specimens coated with white pain layer
3.6
Compression Tests: Cube Test
Compression tests are important in this project and will be carried out for
each concrete mix proportion to determine the compressive strength of the concrete.
Coarse aggregate with the size of 10 mm, fine aggregate and Ordinary Portland
Cement (OPC) are used as the major constituent of the concrete mix to test in the
cube strength of mix design. The fresh concrete was cast in steel or cast-iron moulds.
Test cubes with the dimension of 100 mm x 100 mm x 100mm will be prepared for
each batch of concrete mix and they will be tested on their compressive strength
using compressive strength test machine on day 7, 14, 21 and 28 shown in Figure
3.17 below.
First of all, the mould surface of the mould is ensure that is clean and damp
but free from superfluous moisture before commencing the test. The mould is placed
on a smooth, horizontal rigid and non-absorbent surface free from vibration and
shock. Before filling the mould, a thin layer of oil must be applied to the inside
surface on the mould, in order to prevent the development bond between the mould
39
and the concrete. By reduces leakage of mortar, the mould and its base should be
clamped together during casting.
Figure 3.17: Compressive strength test machine
In the position at the top whilst it is filled in two layers, each approximately
half of the height of the mould when compacted. Each layer of fresh concrete was
compacted 35 times by using the compacting bar. After the top layer has been
compacted, its level with the top of cube is smoothed. All the cube concretes were
curing by covering with plastic and the curing process for cube concrete only takes
one day.
40
3.7
Test Procedure
A research flow chart of methodology has been planned as shown in Figure

3.18. Firstly, information was collected and studies the behavior on shear to design
several of beams to testing in laboratory. Next, to identify the concrete mix
proportion, trial mixes are designed. After that, the material and formwork are
prepared for concrete mix in the cubes with the dimension of 100 mm x 100 mm x
100mm.
After the concrete is harden, all the cube concretes sample were curing by
covering with plastic. After curing process, formworks were removing. When the
compressive strength of the concrete C30 N/mm2, reinforced concrete beam were
prepared for testing.
Prior to testing, the surface of the specimens was painted with while emulsion
so that the detection of the cracks during the test was easier and their making became
clearer. To ease the installation of beam in testing frame, all the lines position of
point load, support and middle of beam were marked. The equipment used for the
testing is the hydraulic jack. The test was carried out with the specimen placed
horizontally in a simple loading arrangement. .
On the testing, the hydraulic jack testing machine with maximum 1000kN
capacity was used as shown in Figure 3.19. The beam was supported by solid round
steel as simply supported member and from support to support the beam effective
length of each beam was 2000mm. The hydraulic jack was placed at two point load
with distance 500mm from point load to support were applied symmetrically to the
beam with av less than 2.5d position above the specimen to provide axial load (N).
While the load cell will be located below the jack and connected to the data logger to
record the total load subjected to the specimen. On the other hand, the Variable
Differential Transducer (LVDT) was set at the point load and mid span of the
41
specimen to measure the deflection. Result on the ultimate load is obtained when the
specimen fail. Result on the ultimate load is obtained when the specimens fail and
the cracking on the specimen was marked by using marker pen. All the data were
collected after the testing and analyzed. Lastly discussion and conclusion were
making in this test procedures.
Figure 3.18: Flow chart of research methodology
42
Figure 3.19: Testing Machine and Set up
3.8
Instrumentation
In brief, all the instruments involved in the testing were as listed as below:
a) Testing Frame - Placement of specimen
b) Hydraulic Jack - Induce the load on specimen.
43
c) Load cell
- Read and calibrate the loading from hydraulic jack as

shown in Figure 3.20.
d) Transducer
- Measuring the deflection of beam
e) Data logger
- Record all the reading of deflection, rotation and loading

act on specimen as shown in Figure 3.20.
f) Marker pen
- Mark the cracking on specimen.
Figure 3.20: Testing Instruments
44
CHAPTER 4
TEST RESULTS
4.1
Introduction
The design and the testing method for the specimens were explained in
previous chapter. This chapter presents the results obtained from the testing carried
out on the five specimens.
From the experiments, illustrated in terms of the
specimen behavior, crack deformation, deflection and ultimate strength were

recorded and observed during the testing.
To obtain the actual concrete strength for each part of specimen, cube
compression test was carried out on control cubes for all specimens on the testing
day. The results for cube testing are as shown in Table 4.1.
45
Table 4.1: Concrete compression strength for all beams.
Days
11
14
4.2
Sample
Concrete Strength, fcu
Average, fcu
(N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
19.00
19.54
27.93
27.94
28.54
30.06
29.23
30.60
31.66
10
31.94
11
32.83
19.27
27.94
29.28
31.13
32.38
Beam B1
The specimen was provided with the main reinforcement and with R6-50
vertical links as shear reinforcement as shown in Table 3.1. The Test procedure
adopted was described in section 3.5.
4.2.1 Specimen Behavior during Test
Beam B1 as served as control specimen was cast with nominal links in the
moment region and vertical links in the shear region with the spacing of 50mm.
46
Upon loading, the first crack was occurred at a load of around 40kN. The crack was
spotted in the constant moment region, originated from the tension face of the beam.
At the same load, some crack also appears in the shear region. More vertical cracks
formed along the length in the constant moment region and extended upwards.
However the propagation of these cracks within the moment region was slow
but steadily with continued loading. Shear cracks will be appeared and take place on
the shear region with respected approximately 45to the point load with 75kN. As
the load increased the cracks extended towards the support point at the lower end and
towards the applied load at the other end. The development of crack pattern can be
seen in Figure 4.1 below. As expected with the specimen and test method employed
in this testing, the beam was failed due to shear failure when more loads are
increasing.
Figure 4.1: Appearance and Cracking Configuration of Specimen Beam B1
4.2.2 Test Results
The results in terms of ultimate load and deflection obtained from specimens
tested in this investigation were shown in Table 4.2. Totally 3 of the variable
differential transducer are provided to measuring the deflection of the beam. Two are
47
located at the point load and one is located at middle span. Failure was caused by the
shear failure at the load of 205kN and with the maximum deflection at 16.73mm.
Figure 4.2 shows the load-deflection relationship for the specimen beam B1.
As can been see in the figure, deflection occurred as soon as the load was applied but
the main bar not yet yield when the maximum ultimate load reached. The complete
result for the testing in shown in Appendix C.
Graph Load (kN) vs Deflection (mm)

240
Load kN)
200
160
120
80
40
Beam B1
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.2: Graph load versus Deflection for Specimen Beam B1
4.3
Beam B2
The specimen was provided with the identical amount of main reinforcement
as provided in Beam B1, but with vertical links of R6-150 and 4T16 as independent
bent-up bars in the shear region as shown in Table 3.1. Anchorage length of the bent-
48
up bar are 75mm. Furthermore, test procedure adopted for this testing are described
in section 3.5.
Beam B2 was cast with nominal links in the moment region and combination
of vertical links and independent bent-up bar in the shear region. The independent
bent-up bars were approximately 45with the respect to the longitudinal axis of the
beam. Testing procedure was similar with the previous specimens.
Upon loading, the first flexural crack was occurred at the middle in the
constant moment region at a load of around 40kN. With continue increasing of
loading, the width of crack became lengthened and widened. At the same time more
vertical cracks formed along the length of the constant moment region and extended
upwards. These developments of crack pattern can be seen in Figure 4.3 below.
However the propagation of these cracks within the moment region was slow.
At the load of 60kN, the first cracks appeared within the shear region. The shear
crack respected approximately 45to the positions of the point load. As the load
increased the cracks extended towards the support point at the lower end and towards
the applied load at the other end.
When the ultimate load reach until 236.2kN, the beam failed in the moment
region on the bar buckle on the top reinforcement due to the very large compression
force. This was because the independent bent up bar was not reach its limit, so the
beam failed in bending not in shear span.
49
4.3.2 Test Results
The ultimate load and deflection for beam B2 are presented in Table 4.1.
Beside that, Figure 4.4 shown that the results in term of graph load versus deflection
relationship. Beam B2 was failed at a load of 236.2kN and with the maximum
deflection 18.97mm. This should that the use of combination system with vertical
links and independent bent-up bar as shear reinforcement were provided stronger
capacity than the conventional shear reinforcement system. Furthermore, the beam
provided high stiffness and yield in main bar. The complete result for the testing in
shown in Appendix C.

280
240
Load kN)
200
160
120
80
40
Beam B2
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Deflection (mm)
20
50
4.4
Beam B3
bent-up bars in the shear region as shown in Table 3.1. Anchorage length of the bentup bar are 75mm. Furthermore, test procedure adopted for this testing are described
in section 3.5.
Beam B3 was cast with nominal links in the moment region and combination
of vertical links and increase amount of independent bent-up bar in the shear region.
The independent bent-up bars were approximately 45 with the respect to the
longitudinal axis of the beam and provided with 75mm of anchorage length. Testing
procedure was similar with the previous specimens. These developments of crack
pattern can be seen in Figure 4.5 below. Form the figure, the first crack was occurred
at the middle in the constant moment region at a load of around 40kN. With continue
increasing of loading, more vertical cracks formed along the length of the constant
moment region and extended upwards.
At the load of 60kN around, the first diagonal cracks developed in the shear
region. As the load increased the cracks extended towards the support point at the
lower end and towards the applied load at the other end. When the load reach to
225.6kN, the beam failed in the moment region on the bar buckle on the top
reinforcement due to the very large compression force. The failure is similar with
beam B2 and at the same location, because the independent bent up bar was not
reach its limit, so the beam failed in bending not in shear span.
51
4.4.2 Test Results
The ultimate load and maximum deflection for Beam B3 was at 225.6kN and
16.17mm respectively are presented in Table 4.2. From the result, it shown that the
independent bent-up bar can carry shear for the experimental testing because the
ultimate load are high than the control specimen.
Figure 4.6 shows the load-deflection relationship for the specimen beam B3.
From the graph, the beam provided high stiffness and yield in main bar. Furthermore,
Beam B3 was failed between the two point loads. The complete result for the testing
in shown in Appendix C.
52

240
Load kN)
200
160
120
80
40
Beam B3
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Deflection (mm)
4.5
Beam B4
bent-up bars in the shear region as shown in Table 3.1. Anchorage length of the bentup bar are 150mm. Furthermore, test procedure adopted for this testing are described
in section 3.5.
Beam B4 was also cast with nominal links in the moment region and
combination of vertical links and independent bent-up bar in the shear region. The
53
amounts of independent bent-up bars are same as beam B3 but difference in
anchorage length. Thats 150mm for each of the independent bent-up bars. on the
other hand, the independent bent-up bars were approximately 45with the respect to
the longitudinal axis of the beam. Testing procedure was similar with the previous
specimens.
As would be expected with the specimens in this testing, the first flexural
crack was occurred at the middle in the constant moment region at a load of around
40kN. With continue increasing of loading, the width of crack became lengthened
and widened. At the same time more vertical cracks formed along the length of the
constant moment region and extended upwards. These developments of crack pattern
can be seen in Figure 4.7 below.
However the propagation of these cracks within the moment region was slow.
At the load of 60kN, shear cracks appeared within the shear region. As the load
the applied load at the other end. The cracks were around 45with respect to the
longitudinal axis of the beam increased slowly in width and length as the load
increase.
When the load reach 229.4kN, the beam failed in the moment region on the
bar buckle due to the very large compression force. This was because the
independent bent up bar was not reach its limit, so the beam failed in bending not in
shear span.
54
4.5.2 Test Results
The test results in term of ultimate load and deflection are presented in Table
4.2. The graph load versus deflection relationship is presented in Figure 4.8 and
shows the deflection proportional to the load. From the graph, the beam provided
high stiffness and yield in main bar.
From the Table, the failure was cause by flexure failure at a load of 229.4kN.
Therefore, with the increase amount of the independent bent-up bar and anchorage
length within the shear region was effective a very little increasing of the capacity
and increase the ductility of the beam when compared with beam B3. The maximum
deflection for Beam B4 was 19.68mm. Furthermore, Beam B4 was failed between
the two point loads. The complete result for the testing in shown in Appendix C.
55

280
240
Load kN)
200
160
120
80
40
Beam B4
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Deflection (mm)
4.6
Beam B5
as provided in Beam B1, but cast without any vertical links. In this Beam, only 8T16
independent bent-up bars were provided in the shear region as shown in Table 3.1.
Anchorage length of the bent-up bar are 150mm. Furthermore, test procedure
adopted for this testing are described in section 3.5.
Beam B5 was cast without any nominal links and vertical links and only
provided with the independent bent-up bar in the shear region. Totally 8 number of
56
independent bent-up bars and same anchorage length with beam B4 is provided. The
independent bent-up bars were also approximately 45 with the respect to the
longitudinal axis of the beam as designed for previous beams. Testing procedure was
similar with the previous specimens.
During the testing, the first flexural crack formed randomly in the constant
moment region at a load of around 40kN. With continue increasing of loading, the
width of crack became lengthened and widened. At the same time more vertical
cracks formed along the length of the constant moment region and extended
upwards. The propagation of these cracks within the moment region was slow. At the
load of 50kN, the first shear cracks appeared within the shear region. As the load
the applied load at the other end. The cracks were around 45with respect to the
increase.
When the load reach 239.2kN, the beam failed in the mid span of the moment
region on the bar buckle due to the very large compression force. This independent
bent up bar was provided in the beam also not yet reach its limit, therefore the beam
failed in bending not in shear span. These developments of crack pattern can be seen
in Figure 4.9 below.
57
4.6.2 Test Results
The failure for this beam was cause by flexure failure at a load of 239.2kN
and the maximum deflection for Beam B4 was 24.82mm. Therefore, with only
provide independent bent-up bar as shear reinforcement without any vertical links
with the spacing of 100mm within the shear region was effective stronger capacity
than the conventional shear reinforcement system as control beam. The test results in
term of ultimate load and deflection are presented in Table 4.2. The graph load
versus deflection relationship is presented in Figure 4.10. From the graph, the beam
provided high stiffness and yield in main bar. The complete result for the testing in
shown in Appendix C.

280
240
Load kN)
200
160
120
80
40
Beam B5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Deflection (mm)
28
58
4.7 Summary Specimen Behavior and Test Results for All Specimens.
All the beams had the same first crack load around 16.5%-19.5% of the
ultimate load. The crack was spotted in the constant moment region, originated from
the tension face of the beam. With continue increasing of loading, the width of crack
became lengthened and widened. At the same time more vertical cracks formed
along the length of the constant moment region and extended upwards.
However the propagation of these cracks within the moment region was slow
but steadily with continued loading. Shear cracks will be appeared and take place on
the shear region. As the load increased the cracks extended towards the support point
at the lower end and towards the applied load at the other end. All the five specimens
experienced due to the small shear span effective depth ratio (a/d = 2.4), the diagonal
shear crack was observed in all of the beams at the load level from 40 to 75kN.
Specimens Beam B1 showed its shear cracking at 19.5% of ultimate load, Beam B2
at 24% of ultimate load, Beam B3 at 26% of ultimate load, Beam B4 at 26% of
ultimate load while Beam B5 demonstrated the shear cracking at 21% of the ultimate
load in the shear region. The cracks that were around 30to 45with respect to the
increases.
Figure 4.11 shows the appearance and cracking configuration of specimens

after the experiment. Shear failure showed by concrete crushing at the loading point
(shear compression), and flexural failure showed by concrete crushing at the
maximum compression zone under the elastic state of tension bar. Only Beam B1
failed in the shear span from the point load to the support due to shear failure.
However, Beam B2, B3, B4 and B5 were failed between the two point loads. This is
due to bending failure by yielding of main reinforcement and bar buckle due to the
very large compression force under the elastic state of tension bar.
59
The five specimens indicated difference in the ultimate load and deflection.
Beam B1 experienced the maximum deflection at 16.73 mm and failed at 205kN.
Beam B2 failed at 236.2kN and deflection at 18.97mm. The ultimate load and
maximum deflection for Beam B3 was at 225.6kN and 16.17mm respectively.
Besides that, Beam B4 broke down at 229.4kN with deflection 19.68mm. Lastly,
Beam B5 showed the maximum deflection at 24.82mm and approached the ultimate
load of 239.2kN. Table 4.2 shows the results of the experiment while Figure 4.12 and
Figure 4.13 illustrated the compressive strength of concrete for all specimen beams
and the load-deflection graph for all specimens respectively. Furthermore, Graph
maximum ultimate load and deflection for all specimen beams as shown in Figure
4.14 and 4.15.
Figure 4.11: Appearance and Cracking Configuration of All Specimens
60
Table 4.2: The Results of the All Specimens
Beam
Main
Vertical links
Inclined Bars
Ultimate
Maximum
Failure
Anchorage
Load
Deflection
Mode
length
(kN)
(mm)
Reinforce
Shear
ment
Region
B1
3T16
R6-50
R6 -150
205.0
16.73
Shear
B2
3T16
R6-150
R6 -150
4T16
75
236.2
18.97
Bending
B3
3T16
R6-150
R6 -150
6T16
75
225.6
16.17
Bending
B4
3T16
R6-150
R6 -150
6T16
150
229.4
19.68
Bending
B5
3T16
8T16
150
239.2
24.82
Bending
Nominal
Amount
Graph Compressive Strength Of Concrete
35
Strength, Fcu (N/mm2)
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
10
12
14
16
Days
Figure 4.12: Graph Compressive Strength of Concrete for All Specimens Beams
61

280
240
Load (kN)
200
160
120
80
40
Beam B1
Beam B2
Beam B3
Beam B4
Beam B5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.13: Graph load versus Deflection for All Specimen Beams
Ultimate load (kN) vs Beam

239.2
236.2
240
225.6
230
229.4
220
210
205
200
190
180
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
Load (kN)
Figure 4.14: Graph Maximum Ultimate Load for All Specimen Beams
28
62
Deflection (mm) vs Beam

24.82
25
20
19.68
18.97
16.73
16.17
15
10
5
0
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
Deflection (mm)
Figure 4.15: Graph Maximum Deflection for All Specimen Beams.
63
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
(a)
Beam B5 showed the highest value of ultimate strength with 239.2kN,

followed by specimen B2, B4, B3 and lastly B1 which reached the lowest
ultimate strength of 205kN. These happened because the used of the
independent inclined bar as shear reinforcement was much stronger than the
conventional shear reinforcement system.
(b)
Beam B1 was designed and prepared with the vertical links as the control
specimen. Theoretically, Beam B1 can carry the actual load of design and it
shows that the use of vertical links that intercepts the crack can reduces the
likelihood of a sudden failure due to shear failure. Beam B2 to Beam B5 was
not fail in shear but fail in moment region based on the bar buckle due to the
very large compression force. This was because the independent bent up bar
was not reach its limit, so the beam failed in bending not in shear span.
(c)
The maximum deflection was found at Beam B5 about 24.82 mm with the
ultimate load of 239.2kN. From the theory analysis, when the deflection and
load increased, it means that the allowable deflection is lower than the
permission deflection.
64
(d)
It is observed that the specimens actually had achieved and even go more than
the required strength of concrete for 8.27% before the experiment was being
carried out. Although variation among different casts in the same experiment
was unavoidable, they were relatively small. However, these errors only
induced a tiny effect on the result; therefore the influence of the concrete
strength in this analysis may be neglected.
(e)
From the analysis, the experimental ultimate load for Beam B2, B3, B4 and B5
failed lower than the calculation value as shown in table 5.1. The amount of the
independent inclined bars increases the shear stresses thus yield reinforcement
crushing on the bending region before the inclined bar could reach it maximum
strain value. All of the four beam specimens were suggested as the most
effective shear reinforcement system. Besides that, Beam B5 has the highest
value of ultimate load at 239.2kN and it does also can carry the shear without
provided at least 50% of shear links as states on the BS8110 code.
(f)
Beam B2, B3, B4 and B5 have achieved the ultimate load with the control
specimen as shown in Table 4.1. The percentages of the ultimate load
compared with the control specimen for Beam B2 to Beam B5 was at the range
of 10% to 17% as shown in table 4.2. From the result, four specimens (B2, B3,
B4, and B5) were good at the ultimate load where the amount is larger than the
control specimen.
(g)
From the experimental beam B2 to B5, the first crack occurred at the middle of
the beam is in the form of flexural cracks. With increasing loads, diagonal
crack developed in the shear region at approximately 45with respect to the
longitudinal axis of the beam. The length and width of the shear cracks
increased gradually until failure take place by crushing of the concrete in
compression zone.
65
(h)
The anchorage length that provide for Beam B3 and Beam B4 with difference
length of 75mm and 150mm was not significant influence on improving the
capacity of the beams and not effective to carry shear because both beams were
failed almost at the similar ultimate load. Maybe the anchorage length might
not sufficient length to carry load.
(i)
From the experimental testing, anchorage length for the independent bent-up
bar can provide shorten length as shear reinforcement. Based on the BS8110
table 3.27, the anchorage bond length for concrete cube strength C30 is 58
number multiples of bar size. So it is not a suitable to provided in the beam
because the inclined bar are never located in the shear region to carry shear.
Furthermore, with provided short anchorage length for the independent bent-up
bar can set more number of bent-up bar and easy to arrangement as a double
system in the shear region to carry shear.
(g)
Graph load versus deflection relationship for all the specimen beam shown that
the deflection proportional to the load. All the combination beam for vertical
links and bent-up bar provided less deflection and can carry more high load
when compare with the control beam. So the beam provided with independent
bent-up bar can be used. Furthermore, beam B2 to B5 provided high stiffness
and yield in main bar so that the sudden failure wont be occur.
(h)
The use of bent up bar are very popular in Malaysia engineer at 1968. Code
CP114 was the designed handout. Almost all the engineer training will
provided bent-up bar and vertical links to resist shear. When at 1972 in UK, a
new code CP110 was using to be a design reference book. Inside the reference,
the book never prefer for the bent-up bar. All the engineers are providing only
with links to carry shear. Maybe difficult to casting the bent-up bar and not
suitable provided in the shorten beam. Bent up bar only provided in the beam at
least 4 or 5 main bars. After that, the design code was change to BS8110. In
66
this design book, shear reinforcement must be provided at least 50% of vertical
links and bent-up bar to carry shear.
Table 5.1: The Comparison between Testing Result and Calculation Value
Beam
Concrete
Calculation
Test
Percentages of Ultimate
Strength,
Value
Result
Load Compared with
fcu
(kN)
(kN)
Control Specimen Beam B1
(N/mm2)
(%)
B1
93.68
102.5
B2
158.98
118.1
15.21
210.22
112.8
10.05
B4
210.22
114.7
11.90
B5
242.86
119.6
16.68
B3
32.48
67
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
Conclusion
The conclusions that can be drawn from this study are as follows:
(a)
The anchorage length of the independent bent-up bars has very little effect on
the capacity of the system in carrying shear in rectangular reinforced concrete
beams.
(b)
Shorten length of anchorage length for bent-up bar can be used in the
multiple system and can provide more number in the shear region to increase
the shear capacity.
(b)
The shear capacity of the rectangular reinforced concrete increases with the
increase in the amount of the independent bent-up bars up to a certain level,
beyond which the advantage is insignificant.
68
(c)
Ultimate load for beam B2 to B5 can achieve high ultimate load than the
control beam. Beam with provided with independent bent-up bar can be used
for design.
(d)
Independent bent-up bars can be used effectively and economically in

reinforced concrete beam design to resist shear.
(e)
Independent bent-up bar can provided high stiffness and yield in main bar so
that the sudden failure wont be occur.
6.3
Recommendations
The following are recommend for future works:
a)
It is also recommended to use smaller size diameter of independent bent-up

bar at shear region to carry shear. With the variety specimens, the results in
terms of different size of the bent-up bar can be determined.
b)
Another type of inclined bar which has welding at the end side that I will
recommend to use in future research. This multiple system can provide in the
shear region. Spacing for this system can easy to setting and its also can
increase the shear resistance. That does no need any bended machine to bend
the bar. This is due to it is easier to install, simple to be used. Other than that,
it is faster and shortens the time to install this system, and it is flexible to use.
69
c)
Furthermore, one more types of shear system that I recommend for the future
research is using the BRC or steel mash to replace vertical links and bent-up
bar. For the installation, just rotate the steel mash with 45 degree and cut the
size needed to join with the main reinforcement to carry shear in the shear
region. After the rotation made, the inclination of the bar can easy to see. This
system is nearly same as inclined bar and easy to install and economically in
reinforced concrete beam design.
70
REFERENCES
1. Noor Azlina (2005), The Use of Horizontal and Inclined Bars as Shear
Reinforcement. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia: Master Thesis, 1995.
2. Concrete Society (1973), Standard Reinforced Concrete Details. United

Kingdom, 1973.
3. N. Jackson and R.K Dhir, Civil Engineering Materials, United Kingdom.
4. W.H. Mosley and J.H. Bungey, Reinforced Concrete Design fifth edition,
United Kingdom
5. T.J.Magginley and B.S. Choo, Reinforced Concrete Design Theory and

Examples second Addition.
6. L.H. Martin (1989), Structural Design in Concrete To BS 8110, Edward

Arnold. 12-159
7. British Standard Institution [BSI] (1997) BS 8110: part 1: 1997 Structure use
of concrete.
8. D C Teychenne, R E Franklin and H C Erntroy, Design of Normal Concrete

Mixes. Department of the Environment, 1975.
9. Charles E. Reynolds and James C. Steedman, Examples of the Design of

Reinforced Concrete Buildings to BS8110. Fourth edition, E and FN Spon,
1992.
71
APPENDIX A
Analysis of singly reinforcement rectangular section
ENGINEERING
Project
No.
Contract :
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Structure :

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
Client :
1) Analysis of Singly Reinforced Rectangular Section in Bending.
Sheet No.
Date
Calcs. By
Checked
Checked
72
Ang Ting Guan
OUTPUT
For equilibrium of the compressive and tensile forces on the section.

Fcc = Fst
Therefore,
0.45fcubs =
S=
=
=
0.95fyAs
0.95fyAs / 0.45fcub
0.95 (460)(603) / 0.45(30)(200)
97.6 mm
S = 97.6 mm
x = S / 0.9
= 97.6 / 0.9
= 108 mm
0.615d
= 0.615(206)
= 126.7 mm
x = 108 mm
This value of x is less than the value of 0.615d and

Therefore the steel has yieldedand fst = 0.95fy as assumed.
Moment of resistance of the section is,
M=
=
=
=
Fst x Z
0.95fyAs x (d-S/2)
0.95 x 460 x 603 x ( 206-97.6/2) x 10-6
41.4 KNm
M = 41.4 KNm
ENGINEERING
Project
No.
Contract :
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Structure :

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
Client :
Sheet No.
Date
Calcs. By
Checked
Checked
73
Ang Ting Guan
OUTPUT
M = P x 0.5
42.7 = 0.5P
P = 82.8 KN
R1 = R2 = P = 82.8 KN
From Shear Force Diagram
V1 = +P =
82.8 KN
V = 82.8 KN
V2 = -P = (-82.8 KN)
From Bending Moment Diagram

M = 41.4 KNm
ENGINEERING
Project
No.
Contract :
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Structure :

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
Client :
Sheet No.
Date
Calcs. By
Checked
Checked
74
Ang Ting Guan
OUTPUT
2) Shear Stress in Beam
Beam with vertical links
v =
V/bd
3
= 82.8 x 10 / 200 x 206
2
= 2.01 N/mm
v < min
0.8 fcu or 5 N/mm2

1/2
= 0.8 x (30)
2
= 4.38 N/mm
Shear Stress
From table 3.8
v c = 0.79 (100As/bvd)1/3(400/d)1/4(fcu/25)1/3 / m
100As/bvd = (100 x 603) / (200 x 206)
= 1.46
400/d = 400 / 206
= 1.94
v c = 0.79 (1.46)1/3(1.94)1/4(30/25)1/3 / 1.25
2
= 0.893 N/mm
where,
vc + 0.4
= 0.89 + 0.4
= 1.29
From table 3.7
( v c 0 .4 ) v 0 .8
As / sv
fcu
or 5 N / mm
bv v vc
0 .95 f yv
= 200 (2.01 - 0.89) / (0.95 X 250)

2
= 0.94 mm /m
ENGINEERING
Project
No.
Contract :
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Structure :

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
Client :
Sheet No.
Date
Calcs. By
Checked
Checked
75
Ang Ting Guan
OUTPUT
Assume the links is 6mm,
Asv = 2 x d 2 /4
= 2 x x (6)2 /4
2
= 57 mm
Sv = 57 / 0.94
= 60 mm
:Provide R 6 @ 50 mm.
minimum shear reinforcement,
As / sv
0.4bv
0.95 f yv
= (0.4 x 200) / (0.95 x 250)

= 0.34
Sv = 57 / 0.34
= 168 mm
> 0.75d = 155 mm
ENGINEERING
Project
No.
Contract :
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Structure :

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
Client :
Sheet No.
Date
Calcs. By
Checked
Checked
76
Ang Ting Guan
OUTPUT
3. The area of tension reinforcement
from cl 3.4.4.4
M
41.4 x 106 / 30 x 200 x (206)2
bd 2 f cu = 0.168
> 0.156
therefore compression steel is required
z d 0 .5
0.25
0 .9
z=
(0.5 + (0.25 - 0.156/0.9)1/2) d
0.777d
< 0.95d
:OK
d z
102 mm
0 . 45
<0.615 d =
mm
127 mm
:OK
d' / d = 41 / 206
= 0.199
: Satisfactory
: Satisfactory
> 0.185
Compression steel:
no required for beam

2 T 10 is choise ( As = 157 mm2)
2 T 10 is choise
( As = 157 mm2)
Tension steel:
2
As = K'fcubd / 0.95fyz + As'
2
= 0.156 x 30 x 200 x 206 /0.95 x 460 x 0.777 x 206
2
= 568 mm
2
3 T 16 is choise ( As = 603 mm )
Asprov
603 mm2
3 T 16 is choise
( As = 603 mm2)
ENGINEERING
Project
No.
Contract :
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Structure :

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
Client :
Sheet No.
Date
Calcs. By
Checked
Checked
77
Ang Ting Guan
OUTPUT
4. Deflections
M / bd2 = 41.4 x 106 / 200 x 2062
= 4.9 N/mm2
fs = 2fyAs req / 3As prov b
= 2 x 460 x 568 / 3 x 603
= 289
2
Modification factor = 0.55 + (477-fs)/120(0.9+M/bd )
= 0.55 + (477 - 289) / 120(0.9 + 4.9)
= 0.82
< 2.0
Basic span-effective depth ratio = 20

L/d req = 20 x 0.82
= 16.4
L/d limit = 2300 / 206
= 11.2
< 16.1
: Satisfactory for deflection
: Satisfactory
78
APPENDIX B
Concrete mix design Grade 30
79
APPENDIX C
Detail for Testing Result
Table C1: Ultimate Load and Deflection Data for Beam B1

Deflection (mm)
Load
First Point
Second Point
Third Point
(kN)
(Left)
(Middle)
(Right)
0.79
0.09
0.54
10
1.18
1.20
0.81
15
1.36
1.51
0.82
20
1.50
1.68
0.82
25
1.67
1.84
0.87
30
1.88
2.07
0.98
35
2.06
2.35
1.11
40
2.24
2.63
1.25
45
2.46
2.89
1.40
50
2.60
3.13
1.58
55
2.78
3.40
1.74
60
3.00
3.64
1.93
65
3.32
4.04
2.12
70
3.51
4.31
2.29
75
3.74
4.69
2.48
80
3.98
4.96
2.65
85
4.98
6.33
3.66
90
5.16
6.58
3.85
95
5.36
6.87
4.07
100
5.57
7.16
4.28
105
5.80
7.47
4.53
80
110
6.09
7.84
4.82
115
6.34
8.18
5.10
120
6.59
8.55
5.41
125
6.89
8.94
5.75
130
7.17
9.34
6.09
135
7.46
9.73
6.40
140
7.76
10.16
6.74
145
8.11
10.56
7.03
150
8.47
10.98
7.36
155
8.84
11.38
7.65
160
9.19
11.80
7.96
165
9.50
12.16
8.24
170
9.84
12.56
8.55
175
10.21
13.02
8.86
180
10.58
13.49
9.19
185
10.98
13.97
9.51
190
11.40
14.47
9.82
195
11.89
15.10
10.27
200
12.61
16.12
11.04
205
13.09
16.73
11.57

Deflection (mm)
Load
First Point
Second Point
Third Point
(kN)
(Left)
(Middle)
(Right)
5.3
0.28
0.20
0.10
10.5
0.46
0.36
0.18
15.3
0.64
0.52
0.27
81
20.8
0.80
0.70
0.36
25.8
0.98
0.84
0.44
30.3
1.14
1.04
0.56
35.6
1.34
1.28
0.73
40.9
1.55
1.54
0.89
45.9
1.81
1.87
1.12
50.9
2.08
2.22
1.35
55.4
2.36
2.50
1.54
60.7
2.64
2.84
1.77
65.9
2.92
3.19
2.02
70.7
3.15
3.49
2.24
75.5
3.41
3.82
2.46
80.2
3.68
4.13
2.69
85.7
3.96
4.49
2.95
90.8
4.20
4.81
3.18
95.8
4.46
5.15
3.42
100.5
4.71
5.47
3.66
105.8
4.95
5.80
3.89
110.8
5.20
6.13
4.12
115.6
5.43
6.43
4.34
120.3
5.69
6.71
4.56
125.3
5.97
7.05
4.81
130.9
6.24
7.39
5.05
135.6
6.51
7.71
5.29
140.6
6.78
8.04
5.53
146.2
7.08
8.41
5.81
150.7
7.35
8.73
6.05
155.7
7.62
9.06
6.29
160.7
7.90
9.39
6.55
165.2
8.17
9.72
6.80
82
170.2
8.46
10.09
7.11
175.7
8.76
10.45
7.38
180.8
9.06
10.82
7.70
185.5
9.37
11.21
7.98
190.3
9.67
11.59
8.28
196.3
10.05
12.05
8.65
200.8
10.33
12.41
8.93
205.6
10.64
12.81
9.24
210.8
10.98
13.27
9.62
215.9
11.34
13.76
10.02
220.9
11.75
14.32
10.46
225.9
12.24
14.96
10.93
230.6
13.06
16.09
11.64
236.2
15.32
18.97
13.30
98.8
20.42
47.22
20.92

Deflection (mm)
Load
First Point
Second Point
Third Point
(kN)
(Left)
(Middle)
(Right)
5.50
0.42
0.29
0.10
10.5
0.65
0.45
0.17
16.0
0.82
0.60
0.27
20.8
0.98
0.73
0.36
24.6
1.09
0.83
0.43
26.1
1.14
0.90
0.46
31.1
1.32
1.10
0.61
35.9
1.50
1.28
0.74
83
41.1
1.73
1.52
0.91
45.9
1.96
1.78
1.09
50.9
2.21
2.08
1.30
55.7
2.45
2.36
1.51
61.2
2.77
2.73
1.78
65.7
3.03
3.04
2.01
70.7
3.32
3.36
2.24
75.7
3.59
3.68
2.48
80.5
3.84
3.99
2.70
86.0
4.10
4.30
2.92
91.0
4.39
4.63
3.16
95.3
4.63
4.91
3.36
100.8
4.91
5.25
3.64
105.8
5.17
5.55
3.85
110.8
5.46
5.89
4.11
115.6
5.69
6.15
4.31
120.3
5.95
6.46
4.55
125.9
6.24
6.83
4.80
131.1
6.50
7.15
5.06
135.9
6.76
7.45
5.27
140.4
7.02
7.75
5.50
145.7
7.29
8.09
5.75
150.9
7.57
8.42
6.00
156.2
7.88
8.76
6.27
161.2
8.15
9.07
6.51
165.5
8.41
9.37
6.73
170.7
8.71
9.72
6.99
175.2
8.99
10.01
7.22
180.5
9.31
10.39
7.51
185.5
9.62
10.76
7.78
84
190.5
9.95
11.12
8.07
195.3
10.29
11.50
8.35
201.1
10.67
11.92
8.68
205.8
11.00
12.30
8.96
211.6
11.46
12.82
9.33
215.4
11.75
13.17
9.58
220.9
12.27
13.76
10.00
225.6
14.75
16.17
11.37
134.1
19.14
42.13
21.45

Deflection (mm)
Load
First Point
Second Point
Third Point
(kN)
(Left)
(Middle)
(Right)
6.0
0.33
0.11
0.05
10.8
0.47
0.21
0.05
15.8
0.60
0.32
0.06
20.3
0.71
0.43
0.13
26.1
0.84
0.56
0.24
30.3
0.98
0.71
0.37
35.6
1.12
0.89
0.51
40.1
1.27
1.09
0.66
46.1
1.46
1.35
0.85
50.9
1.70
1.65
1.08
55.7
1.91
1.90
1.28
60.4
2.13
2.20
1.51
66.2
2.36
2.49
1.74
69.9
2.53
2.72
1.91
85
75.7
2.78
3.03
2.15
80.5
2.98
3.28
2.34
85.7
3.20
3.58
2.57
90.5
3.40
3.85
2.78
95.5
3.60
4.13
3.00
100.3
3.81
4.38
3.20
105.5
4.03
4.69
3.42
110.8
4.25
4.97
3.63
116.1
4.47
5.25
3.85
120.8
4.68
5.52
4.05
125.1
4.91
5.80
4.27
130.9
5.15
6.13
4.51
136.1
5.38
6.42
4.73
140.6
5.58
6.70
4.95
145.9
5.80
6.96
5.17
151.2
6.04
7.28
5.41
155.9
6.26
7.56
5.63
160.4
6.48
7.84
5.85
165.7
6.76
8.18
6.14
170.5
7.01
8.49
6.40
175.7
7.27
8.82
6.66
180.8
7.49
9.09
6.87
185.5
7.74
9.43
7.13
190.5
8.01
9.76
7.38
195.5
8.27
10.09
7.63
200.3
8.55
10.44
7.91
205.6
8.80
10.78
8.17
210.8
9.10
11.16
8.44
215.6
9.42
11.58
8.74
220.9
9.85
12.13
9.17
86
225.6
12.17
14.55
10.58
227.6
14.87
17.65
12.27
229.4
16.35
19.68
13.49
229.4
18.46
22.23
15.03
227.6
21.18
25.30
16.69
226.1
24.45
40.49
24.71
151.9
24.45
50.92
24.59

Deflection (mm)
Load
First Point
Second Point
Third Point
(kN)
(Left)
(Middle)
(Right)
5.3
0.07
0.16
0.21
10.5
0.22
0.33
0.36
15.5
0.35
0.48
0.46
20.8
0.49
0.63
0.57
25.6
0.59
0.75
0.64
30.6
0.72
0.88
0.74
36.1
0.88
1.03
0.85
40.6
1.05
1.23
0.98
45.6
1.24
1.46
1.12
50.9
1.46
1.74
1.32
55.7
1.67
1.99
1.47
60.7
1.92
2.29
1.66
65.7
2.15
2.57
1.85
70.7
2.38
2.84
2.06
75.7
2.62
3.13
2.24
80.5
2.82
3.38
2.40
87
86.0
3.09
3.70
2.61
90.5
3.29
3.93
2.77
96.0
3.51
4.21
2.96
100.0
3.70
4.44
3.13
105.8
3.94
4.73
3.32
110.6
4.16
5.01
3.51
116.1
4.39
5.28
3.72
121.1
4.60
5.55
3.92
125.6
4.81
5.83
4.12
129.6
4.97
6.02
4.26
136.4
5.25
6.38
4.53
141.1
5.45
6.63
4.71
146.2
5.64
6.88
4.89
150.2
5.82
7.11
5.05
155.7
6.05
7.40
5.26
160.9
6.27
7.68
5.46
165.5
6.45
7.91
5.63
170.5
6.67
8.18
5.85
176.0
6.89
8.47
6.04
180.3
7.09
8.72
6.22
185.3
7.31
8.98
6.41
190.3
7.52
9.26
6.61
195.8
7.77
9.59
6.83
200.8
7.99
9.88
7.04
205.6
8.22
10.19
7.25
210.1
8.41
10.43
7.42
215.9
8.69
10.80
7.69
220.9
8.96
11.16
7.94
225.4
9.26
11.56
8.27
230.4
9.67
12.14
8.65
88
235.9
11.73
15.78
10.54
237.2
12.18
16.56
10.94
238.4
15.62
21.15
13.39
239.2
18.06
24.82
15.27
228.6
23.97
36.33
21.51
52.6
23.85
46.33
22.17
Table C6: Concrete Strength (N/mm2) of Specimen on the Testing Day

Beam B1 to B5
Samples
Concrete Strength, fcu
Average fcu
(N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
31.94
32.83
32.67
32.48
89
APPENDIX D
Calculation of Shear Stress Analysis

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Project
No.
Contract :
Client :
Structure : Specimen Beam B1
1) Calculation of Shear Stress Analysis for Beam B1
Sheet No.
90
Date
Calcs. By Ang Ting Guan
Checked
Checked
OUTPUT
From table 3.8

v c = 0.79 (100As/bvd)1/3(400/d)1/4(fcu/25)1/3 / m
100As/bvd = (100 x 603) / (200 x 206)
= 1.46
400/d = 400 / 206
= 1.94
v c = 0.79 (1.46)1/3(1.94)1/4(30/25)1/3 / 1.25
2
= 0.92 N/mm
Shear Resistance of links & concrete

v s = (Asv/sv x 0.95fyv + bvc) d
= (57/50 x 0.95 x 250 +(200 x 0.92)) 206
= 93.68 kN
v s = 93.68 kN
< actual load = 102.5 kN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Project
No.
Contract :
Client :
Sheet No.
91
Date
Checked
Checked
OUTPUT
v s = (Asv/sv x 0.95fyv) d
= (57/50 x 0.95 x 250 ) 206
= 56.50 kN
Shear Resistance of Bent Up Bars

vb = 0.95fyvAsbsin(d-d')(cot + cot)
sb
= 0.95 x 460 x 201 x sin45x (206 - 41)(cot45+cot45)
200
= 102.48 kN
Total Shear Resistance

V = 56.50 + 102.48
= 158.98 kN
> actual load = 118.1 kN
V=
158.98 kN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Project
No.
Contract :
Client :
Sheet No.
92
Date
Checked
Checked
OUTPUT
= (57/50 x 0.95 x 250 ) 206
= 56.50 kN

sb
= 0.95 x 460 x 1.5 x 201 x sin45x (206 - 41)(cot45+cot45)
200
= 154.2 kN

V = 56.50 + 154.2
= 210.7 kN
V=
210.7 kN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Project
No.
Contract :
Client :
Sheet No.
93
Date
Checked
Checked
OUTPUT
= (57/50 x 0.95 x 250 ) 206
= 56.50 kN

sb
= 0.95 x 460 x 1.5 x 201 x sin45x (206 - 41)(cot45+cot45)
200
= 154.2 kN

V = 56.50 + 154.2
= 210.7 kN
V=
210.7 kN

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING
DESIGN CALCULATIONS
Project
No.
Contract :
Client :
Sheet No.
94
Date
Checked
Checked

Shear Resistance of concrete
v s = Vcbd
= 0.92 x 200 x206
= 37.90 kN

sb
= 0.95 x 460 x 2 x 201 x sin45x (206 - 41)(cot45+cot45)
200
= 204.96 kN

V = 37.90 + 204.96
= 242.86 kN
V = 242.86 kN

Concrete Shear Research

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Concrete Shear Research

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PSZ 19:16 (Pind.

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

ANG TING GUAN

THE INFLUENCE OF THE ANCHORAGE OF

(Contains confidential information under the Official Secret

(Contains restricted information as specified by the

I agree that my thesis to be published as online open access

I acknowledged that Universiti Teknologi Malaysia reserves the right as follows:

P.M. DR. RAMLI ABDULLAH

(NEW IC NO. /PASSPORT NO.)

: PM. DR. RAMLI ABDULLAH

THE INFLUENCE OF THE ANCHORAGE OF

ANG TING GUAN

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Faculty of Civil Engineering

ANG TING GUAN

First of all, I wish to express my grateful thanks to my project supervisor,

Shear Stress Variation in Reinforced Rectangular Beams

Shear Failure in Beams without Shear Reinforcement

Types of Shear Failure

Case 1: (av/d > 6)

Case 2: (6> av/d > 2)

Case 3: (av/d > 2)

BS8110 Requirement for Designing the

Details of Test Specimens

Materials of Reinforced Concrete Beam

Preparation of Test Specimens

Concreting and Curing

Compression Tests: Cube test

Specimen Behavior during Test

Specimen Behavior during Test

Specimen Behavior during Test

Specimen Behavior during Test

Specimen Behavior during Test

Summary of Specimen Behavior and Test Results

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Value of ultimate shear stress vc (N/mm2)for a concrete

Proportion of concrete mix design

Concrete compression strength for all beams

The Results of the all specimens

The comparison between testing result

Principal stresses in a beam

Shear stress variation in reinforced rectangular beams.

Failure due to av/d ratio

Case 1: (av/d > 6)

Case 2: (6> av/d > 2)

Case 3: (av/d > 2)

Types of shear reinforcement

Vertical links and the analogous truss

Dimension of Beam Specimen

Several size of steel reinforcement

Independent bent-up bar with different amount

Ply woods formwork

Bar bender machine Takeda TBN-32

Steel cutter machine branded Kingsland

Reinforcement cast into formworks

Mechanical drum mixer

Steel cube moulds

Specimens coated with white pain layer

Compressive strength test machine

Flow chart of research methodology

Testing machine and set up

Appearance and cracking configuration of